ilex9
Posts: 1027
Joined: 7/30/2005
From: NE Tenn.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: platypus
A lot has to do with the intention of the artist.
... it just means that it's boring to me & is not my taste. Same with a lot of abstract art, I think of much of it as decorative & very little moves me at all.
This is what I find the most interesting about the differing of opinions on this subject. How much has to do with the intention of the artist? I've always seen it as a 2-way street where they viewer vicariously interracts with the artist through the art, which acts as a door or filter for the intent. For example, many people say Rothko's work makes them feel uplifted, etc. when the metaphor he often used for them was tragedy. Even though his intent was different than the viewer's reaction, the lines of give and take opened by the artwork remain active. A viewer glances at the work, moves on and summarily forgets about it, those lines of communication are pretty much closed,so the work has not been effective for the VIEWER. The artist may have goten a lot out of it - even if it is a "failed" attempt at realism, moving through the process may have been significant for the artist. Likewise, someone may be cranking out bubble wrap prints and sending them off to buyers - not really getting any more out of the process than a worker on a factory line assembling widgets. The viewer may just be trying to match their sofa, but they also might have an actual deep reaction (those colors/shapes remind them of something, give them a feeling... or, what a waste of paint! I-an elephant- a 3 year old could do that!). In the case of the latter, the viewer has made the connection with the original process, so in a way the door is still open. A good question here is do you remember the work you're referencing when you say 'that blank canvas', 'that piece where they were trying too hard and failed', or is it just an amorphous melange that signifies 'bad art'?
Another is what context did you see them in? Is the location of the "door" as important as the art itself? The first time I ever saw a lot of minimalist and abstract work was in a large, dead quiet museum setting. I wonder if my reaction would have been different if I was in a different setting (restaurant, office, model home, someone's living room)?
A lot of questions remain regarding what IS "Art" or what constitutes "good" or "bad" art. The fact remains that one person's bad may be another's good. The problem is if we are going to define "Art" as something that requires "genius" (not necessarily the case?) who gets to decide? A lot of the reactionary stuff happened because of who got to decide the answer to that (do you have $?).
er... sorry to meander and babble.
_____________________________
~ Caroline
These are not the droids you are looking for.
|
Printable Version
RE: Non Art - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread