[Milton-L] Kirmss Sculpture

[James Rovira]

Thanks for the reply, Jeffery.  I can see how that paragraph would be
taken that way.  I was disagreeing with the notion that visual art by
itself can serve instructive purposes apart from a broader context.
Here's the quotation again:

> 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.

I think "that way" was a bit ambiguous.  "That way" wasn't a reply to
the artwork itself, but to what was being said about it -- quoted at
the bottom of my post.

Honestly, my first reaction was, "What the heck does Tibet have to do
with Milton?"  Then I read the artist's explanation, realized it quite
likely accompanied the artwork in the exhibition, so figured linking
the two was fair game.  My post was intended to demonstrate how
someone might interpret the artwork from different points of view,
starting with how a western audience with some knowledge of Milton
might interpret it.  I don't think there were many eastern texts
translated into English in Milton's day, if any -- but I have no idea
of any available in any other European language.  To my knowledge the
first ones translated into English were mid to late eighteenth century
-- Blake had access to these and could make reference to them.

I'm not sure that Milton's obscure references are quite the same as
the obscurity of a reference to Tibetan art in a Milton sculpture.
Most references in his works seem to me to be fair game for an
educated European of his day, though often obscure to us now.  There
are probably some exceptions.

Thanks for posting those other images...ha...isn't the downwardly
thrust tongue often a sign of aggression (except in Einstein's case)?

Jim R