Posted by Pat Weiler on December 20, 1998 at 19:31:22:
In Reply to: The Oops Thesis posted by Yon Bard on December 19, 1998 at 20:36:42:
: John, this may be a little late in the game for returning to basics, but after rereading your intro it occurred to me that I wasn't quite sure what 'the oops thesis' was, nor how the questions you posed are relevant to the proof or refutation of this thesis. Perhaps you can shed light on these matters in your summing-up.
: Regards, Yon
I was perusing the 1994 Hali annual and found this statement in Seeing and Believing, Navaho Blankets, by Joshua Baer:
"People who have looked at only a few Navajo blankets often want to know if the lazy lines and the variegated yarns at work in the blankets were put there intentionally, or happened through some kind of 19th century Navajo accident. The question ignores and overlooks the possibility that Navajo weavers wove their blankets in such a way that the very issue of accidental-versus-intentional would not only be raised, but would be impossible to resolve. Why? Because ambiguity makes art more fascinating, and attracts a better quality of attention than art which answers all of our questions."
Post a Followup