Book Review, Rethinking Art by Steve Ships,Part 6

It's been a couple of weeks since I picked up this book and read a chapter, so here's a short precis of my observations...

In chapter 6 of the book by Steve Shipps "Rethinking Art", he repeats the point made earlier that our interpretation and perception of the world is almost always represented through some form of language. In the earlier chapters he explains that whilst pre-"Modern" era art is referring to linguistic connections, more lately, the actual perceptions of art itself lie outside of those linguistic systems and is much more fluid because art is not as rule-bound as language is.
 He also explains that the meanings of signs and symbols around us are not "found" as such, but it is what we "make" of them that is important. Therefore, by observing signs and symbols, and then manipulating them to coincide with our own preconceived perceptions we then make meaning from them.

Steve Shipps uses an example of the famous quote by Albert Einstein of E = MC squared, as a mathematical and physical formula which is easy to understand because we 'pre-know' what each of the elements in that formula means. - The language of physics provides that structure, i.e. to show that E equals energy, M equals mass and C equals the speed of light (squared).

Whilst this example of the formula is clearly able to be understood by most (with a rudimentary grasp of physics), when this is compared with an example of say, contemporary poetry, the poetry is actually incredibly difficult to understand as, (particularly in contemporary terms), the language and rules of the language are shall we say bent in order to create ambiguity in the reader, so that multiple interpretations might be the outcome of contemporary poetry. Likewise, what I think Steve Shipps is trying to do is to articulate how contemporary art also has multiple symbols; multiple signs; in order that multiple interpretations and 'perceptions' can be gained from a contemporary work of art (as well as contemporary poetry).

Shipps then goes on to describe how our creativity can be categorised in terms of creating something that has purpose and is purposive, (just as language is generally purposive), but in the case of art, when we create something in art there is no "so that" enquiry as to the object's meaning. What I mean by this, is when we create a product or design "so that" it meets a particular need or satisfies a particular purpose, then it is a creation, but not necessarily contemporary art. If however we create something and the "so that" test shows that the object has no purpose at all, (other than to stimulate discussion or other ideas), then it is appropriate that it is called "art".