Friday, October 14, 2005
Art though art?
First of all let me say, Im not much of an artist. Many, MANY of my friends are, and are actually quite good at it. As such Im sure at least some of them will disagree with what I have to say here. Feel free. Im not stuck to this opinion, its just something im thinking of atm.
I look apon the state of the arts in this world, I think here particularly of literature and “art” (Painting, Drawing, Sculpting) I think it started with abstract works. Works that were genuinely done with an underlying theme, Something the artist wanted to show without being explicit.
That was the big mistake. Because people are stupid. They wont see the intended meaning, but, they dont want to admit that. They dont want to look stupid. (And to be fair, some of these artworks intended purposes were perhaps not so obvious.)
So what do they do? The look at the artwork and come up with their own interpretation of what it is trying to say. Often vastly differeent from what the creator intended.
This is what abstract art has done, It has moved ownership of deermining the “message” of an artwork from the creator to the viewer. But this move didn't stop there. Nono.. people took this self-provisioned lisence to interpret artwork in their own way, and transferred it into Carte Blanche to do so for all artworks.
The result of this is such artworks as the ½ million dollar black on black painting of (insert your interpretations here) at night.
This attitude leads to creators needing to produce their message far more clearly, clinically, if they want to have it read as they wrote it. And this will destory “ART”, if it wishes to actually have meaning. Such art will become a science, a science of communication. The best way to present a message as you want it to be heard.
The alternative, allowing some emotion to remain in the artwork immediately opens it up to interpretation by the viewer/reader. What your trying to say can be ignored and taken to mean whatever the viewer/reader wants it to be saying.
Whats my point. I dont know, but here's a thought, this attitude of interpreting things for yourself of looking for what you want to hear, projecting what you want the author to be saying onto the artwork (wether subconciously or conciously) bleeds over into areas where it really shoulden't. For examples, christians will use it to make the bible say what they want it to say.
Christian bible reading should be done in term of what we understand the rest of the bible to say, but not in terms of our own prejudices. And that's not at all easy to do. Its so easy to read what we want rather than what is said.
I think the right to define the correct interpretation of an artwork must remain with the creator. Otherwise I may as well just paint a solid black picture, and let my audience see whatever it is they most want to see (with the lights turned off)
I look apon the state of the arts in this world, I think here particularly of literature and “art” (Painting, Drawing, Sculpting) I think it started with abstract works. Works that were genuinely done with an underlying theme, Something the artist wanted to show without being explicit.
That was the big mistake. Because people are stupid. They wont see the intended meaning, but, they dont want to admit that. They dont want to look stupid. (And to be fair, some of these artworks intended purposes were perhaps not so obvious.)
So what do they do? The look at the artwork and come up with their own interpretation of what it is trying to say. Often vastly differeent from what the creator intended.
This is what abstract art has done, It has moved ownership of deermining the “message” of an artwork from the creator to the viewer. But this move didn't stop there. Nono.. people took this self-provisioned lisence to interpret artwork in their own way, and transferred it into Carte Blanche to do so for all artworks.
The result of this is such artworks as the ½ million dollar black on black painting of (insert your interpretations here) at night.
This attitude leads to creators needing to produce their message far more clearly, clinically, if they want to have it read as they wrote it. And this will destory “ART”, if it wishes to actually have meaning. Such art will become a science, a science of communication. The best way to present a message as you want it to be heard.
The alternative, allowing some emotion to remain in the artwork immediately opens it up to interpretation by the viewer/reader. What your trying to say can be ignored and taken to mean whatever the viewer/reader wants it to be saying.
Whats my point. I dont know, but here's a thought, this attitude of interpreting things for yourself of looking for what you want to hear, projecting what you want the author to be saying onto the artwork (wether subconciously or conciously) bleeds over into areas where it really shoulden't. For examples, christians will use it to make the bible say what they want it to say.
Christian bible reading should be done in term of what we understand the rest of the bible to say, but not in terms of our own prejudices. And that's not at all easy to do. Its so easy to read what we want rather than what is said.
I think the right to define the correct interpretation of an artwork must remain with the creator. Otherwise I may as well just paint a solid black picture, and let my audience see whatever it is they most want to see (with the lights turned off)
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 18:50 
