Vince Pitelka on sat 24 may 03
> If I need to know an artist's background, bio, influences, etc, to
> understand his or her work, then the work has failed in my opinion with
the
> exception of that artist's friends and collectors.
This is fine as a personal decision, Tony, but please don't imply that
anyone else should limit themselves this way. Of course it's okay for you
or anyone else to go entirely on how the work strikes you, given only the
piece itself without any documentation or background. There is nothing
wrong with that, but remember that true appreciation of art as a purposeful
endeavor has little to do with whether or not you like the work. It has to
do with understanding the work and the context of its creation.
But think of it this way: if you always observe and appreciate art based
only on what is in the artwork itself, your appreciation is based entirely
on what you already know - on your present context for understanding and
appreciation. So you deny yourself the opportunity to expand on that
knowledge and therefore on your capacity for the appreciation and
understanding of art. Why in the world would you do that?
> If the artist needs to explain the work so we "get it," the artist attempt
> at making a statement has failed as well.
Who says the artist needed to explain anything? He did so for the benefit
of those of us who are open to a broader understanding and interpretation.
I'd say that was a very considerate thing to do. Without the explanation
you might understand the work and you might not, but to deny yourself the
opportunity to investigate further, to find out what the artist was trying
to accomplish, seems an unproductive self-limitation.
> If a work is dependant on an artists career and what they have done in the
> past to understand it, it is also a failure.
Huh? You better explain this one. Every artist's work is dependent on
their career and what they have done in the past, and it is ALWAYS
instructive to learn that information. Again, why in the world would you
deny yourself this opportunity?
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Earl Brunner on sat 24 may 03
I knew a guy in grad school that was working on a doctorate in the
philosophy of art. He maintained exactly this, that what the artist
intended and was trying to communicate was totally irrelevant. He
placed the art critic above the artist. I always thought he was rather
full of it. The idea that talking about art was more relevant than the
art itself seems the height of arrogance and buffoonery.
Fundamentally, how I FEEL about a work, how I relate to it, how it
speaks to me (all a bunch of feldergarb) is still probably more
important to me than what an artist might have to say about his work.
That may as you say be a limited understanding, but I think that is part
of the process. Might I react differently at another time, bringing
different experiences and context to the experience, probably. I have a
couple of pots that every single time I pick them up I see something,
more, something, new, something different. And that's OK. Art and Art
Appreciation are more of a process than and end.
The important thing I think is to not limit yourself or to have a closed
mind. Be open to change. I've decided that most people resist change.
Where do we learn that? Even the first graders at my school get fixated
on routine and resist change. Change the routine on them and they fall
apart.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Vince
Pitelka
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:15 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition - Tony's comments
But think of it this way: if you always observe and appreciate art based
only on what is in the artwork itself, your appreciation is based
entirely
on what you already know - on your present context for understanding and
appreciation. So you deny yourself the opportunity to expand on that
knowledge and therefore on your capacity for the appreciation and
understanding of art. Why in the world would you do that?
Snail Scott on sun 25 may 03
At 04:43 PM 5/24/03 -0700, Earl wrote:
>I knew a guy in grad school that was working on a doctorate in the
>philosophy of art. He maintained exactly this, that what the artist
>intended and was trying to communicate was totally irrelevant. He
>placed the art critic above the artist...
We have Clement Greenberg to thank for this attitude.
He wasn't alone, but he was certainly the leading
proponent of the idea that the artist is some sort of
unknowing 'channel' for ideas that the artist himself
isn't really capable of comprehending. The artist may
THINK he understands what he's doing, but he doesn't,
really. He's merely the conduit, taking subconscious
inspiration and giving it physical form. Artists - what
amazing creatures they are! Pat them on the head, invite
them to parties as entertainment, but be sure to get
them safely back into the studio where they won't hurt
themselves! It's a notion that fit neatly into the tenets
of mid-century Abstract Expressionism, for which Greenberg
was the leading critic (read: cheerleader). For years he
was the star-maker in modern art and the sole arbiter of
'right-thinking' in art criticism, and the extent of his
influence is hard to overestimate even now. The notion of
the artist as some sort of idiot-savant who makes deeply
inspired creations that the viewer/critic is then
responsible for interpreting is a pernicious and silly
one that still has a great deal of currency. It's been
mellowed a bit by merging with late-20th century ideas of
relativism, which underlie the notion that whatever the
artist may have intended, it's the viewer alone who
creates meaning. It's considered by many that what the
viewer brings to the work does create an extended meaning
beyond what the artist made, and that the viewer's
interaction with the work is what actually completes it.
Of late, however, the artist has been allowed to return
to the scene as an actual, thinking participant in the
work, not just its means of creation.
If the inner life of the artist often seems permitted to
overshadow the art itself, making the 'backstory' more
important than the object at hand, perhaps it's merely a
backlash against the artist's previous 'irrelevance' to
art.
-Snail
| |
|
