[Milton-L] Kirmss Sculpture

[James Rovira]

I'm not sure that visual symbols work that way.  It seems to me that
icons only work as a visual language capable of teaching if the
viewers share enough context to immediately understand the symbols.
The texture of the tongue is reminiscent (to me) of far eastern art,
but if we're talking "Milton" with a very western-style crown, then
there's no reason for a far eastern context to come to mind.  I
thought the tongue was strangely textured but didn't make the
connection until after it was brought up.  This is roughly equivalent
to writing in Tibetan for a western audience or writing in English for
a Tibetan audience -- visual symbols are not universal.  They are
dependent upon a shared cultural context for understanding.

But, there is indeed a close resemblance between the sculpture of
Milton's head and the image of Yama -- even the eyes and eyebrows,
with the hair resembling a crown, but Yama is more fierce.  So this
sculpture might communicate well to someone whose primary frame of
reference is Tibetan art -- the person viewing might ask, what is
being said about Milton by linking him to this figure?  Or, at least
by displaying that tongue?

So, the art did not communicate anything about Tibetan art to an
unfamiliar audience -- the artist's description did that, but that's
not technically part of the artwork itself.  In a gallery I imagine
the artist's text might accompany the artwork, but since we're viewing
a photo of the sculpture out of context in a newspaper article, that
context is lost -- not the artist's fault, of course.

On the other hand, once we understand the figure is supposed to be
Milton himself, seeing a crown on his head very sensibly leads to the
idea of Milton as the king of the poets.  The tongue in a westen
context either indicates disgust or that the head has been
decapitated, so interpretation of the image might run in that
direction -- the king of the poets is disgusted, or has had his head
cut off and mounted on a platter (perhaps making a statement about
poetry today as opposed to poetry in Milton's day).

Of course, imagine a society in which the monarch wore beads instead
of a crown -- someone viewing the sculpture from this context may well
ask, "What's that thing on his head?  Torture device?  Must be, look
at that tongue and the look on his face."

Jim R

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM,  <BOOTSPHD at aol.com> wrote:
> You know, Arthur's Tibetan articulation of Milton's tongue is PURE ARTHUR.
> I didn't know that, too.
> Isn't that the whole point?
> To teach the viewer something s/he didn't know?