Jonquil

            The Monday morning of October 3^rd was my first time working at OCADU since the spring. I worked in Photography for David Scopick. He gave the same basic lecture and demonstration of lighting that he’s been doing for years. He always asks for me because he thinks my face has a lot of character, plus older models have more character in general. I wasn’t available last year and I heard he was disappointed to not be able to use me. He told his class that I’ve heard his lecture so many times I could probably do it myself.

            Using me as a subject, he demonstrated how one light could be used for portrait photography, then he added another light and then another.

            Like the drawing and painting classes at OCADU, the photography class consisted mostly of young women. I think there were only two guys in the whole class.

            We finished early, and so I had time to ride home for a while before Philosophy class. When I got there I checked behind the couch to see how Jonquil was doing. Given the signs over the last week, it was not a surprise to see that she was very still. I reached down to touch her and it was obvious that she had died that morning while I had been out.

            I sent a message on Facebook to let Astrid know that the last of our cats had died.

            One of her roommates in Montreal has a cat, so I told her that next time they come to Toronto they can take back some or all of the quality canned cat food I have here and obviously have no more use for.

            I think that the cats had pretty good lives. Amarillo probably has tons of children within blocks of here from all of his years of wandering around the neighbourhood. Daffodil had several litters of kittens over the years and I found homes for every one of them.   

            Jonquil, for some reason, could not get pregnant, but in her seventeen years, which is the equivalent of eighty-four for us, she certainly had lots of sex and lots of affection from other cats. Her and her siblings never saw a vet and yet they lived two years longer than the average age of cats that have had their shots. Her final summer was a particularly good one for Jonquil, since she loved to hunt, and managed to kill at least five birds.

            Since I had to leave for class, there was no time to dispose of her body.

            We began Aesthetics class with a review of the last lecture.

            One view is that pop art cannot have great value but it can have functional value as pleasure and entertainment.

            Another view is that pop art has no artistic value at all.

            The Empiricist view is that if pop art makes people feel good then it is okay.

            The Aestheticist view is that art must aesthetically delight those with taste. Since pop is formulaic and easy to make, one does not need taste to understand it.

            The Cognitivist view is that pop is trite, shallow and unchallenging.

            Shusterman says that Aestheticism and Cognitivism are not wrong but popular art can nonetheless bring aesthetic delight and understanding because there is more than contemplation and intellectualism in the appreciation of art. There is bodily aestheticism and bodily understanding.

            Devlin told us that our theoretical essay is due on October 27^th and that the topics were: What is art; the ontology of art; and the value of art. We have to write 1200 words in an argument for one of the theories, but also address competing theories. We have to submit it to turnitin.com and to our designated TA. This is not a research paper so we have to use examples from our own lives.

            Our lecture was about interpretation.

            We ascribe meaning. Take the word “comment”. In English it means “statement” but in French it means “how”.

            What is the meaning, if anything, of a work of art?

            He asked us to respond with our iclickers to the question, “Is there a correct objective interpretation of a work of art?” 29% somewhat agreed, while 23% agreed.

            All of the theories assume there is one objective meaning of an artwork.

            Actual Intentionalism says that the meaning comes from the artist’s intention. If the artist says that a red canvas is about the Israelites crossing the red sea, then it is.

            A chair is a chair because it is used as a chair.

            The word red means the colour red because we intend it.

            In the same way we extend language and objects to artworks.

            What is wrong with this?

            Someone is about to meet his friend’s mother, who only speaks Chinese. He asks his friend to teach him something nice to say to her as a greeting, but as a joke, his friend teaches him a phrase that means, “You are ugly!”

            Content can be separated from intention.

            Intentionalism diminishes value, while a multitude of interpretations increases value. If limited to one way, we are cut off. But that seems strange. How can a single interpretation limit value?

            Conventionalism says that the meaning is determined by conventions and context around the artwork. It has nothing to do with the intention of the artist. But what is the convention being followed in a Jackson Pollock painting? Exactly what the name implies Abstractism and Expressionism. Pollock was obviously informed by those that came before him as well as breaking free at the same time.

            We would not look for his intention. We would have to access the movement of Abstract Expressionism and the intention of the movement was to remove intention.

            The problem is that it now seems too permissive because it admits too many interpretations. If we remove the artist’s intention from the context then effectively all interpretations are correct, so where is the meaning?

            Hypothetical Intentionalism says that the meaning is determined by the audience’s beliefs about the artist’s intention. The artist’s actual intention is irrelevant. Conventions and context are evidence for the artist’s intention. What is important is that the audience constructs an intention informed by conventions rather than fantasy. This is the middle ground of both theories.

            This might also limit value, but in a different way. Making interpretation dependant on knowledge. It doesn’t mean we have to interpret.

            All of these views may be trying to direct interpretation.

            After class I went home and got ready to dispose of Jonquil’s body. I have accumulated a lot of recyclable bags, so I picked a colourful one. I wrapped her up in an old but clean towel. Cats get so stiff when they die that their bodies afterwards seem like they are made out of plaster. There wasn’t much of a relation between the thing I wrapped up and put in the bag and the cat that had been moving around the apartment so flexibly for seventeen years. I put another couple of soft recyclable bags on top, so the body wouldn’t be visible. I was a little worried on my way to High Park because even though the cops haven’t pulled me over for a few years, one never knows when it’s going to happen, If they did, I’d have a hard time explaining why I was carrying a dead cat around. I went into the woods and found an area between some logs where I left the bag. I figured that the coyotes might find it, or maybe just the maggots, but I doubted if it would take long for her body to return to nature.

            When I got back, I vacuumed behind the couch and washed the general area where she died. The space needs a major cleaning because of the times when Amarillo went back there to sleep and did a lot of drooling because of his abscess tooth, but for now I just made sure it was relatively sanitary back there.

            The apartment sure is quiet without cats. It’s had cats in it for 19 years. I guess it’s possible that my cats were the one thing that kept mice out of the building, so if rodents return, I might consider getting another cat. If they don’t, I won’t.