Joerg posted the following today:
"Lotte Reimann's website is pretty bare bones, so it's hard (if not impossible) to tell what they series are about; but the work is quite interesting."
I would argue that the work is about whatever you'd like it to be about. An artist can have intent for sure, but you can never force someone to have the same emotions, understanding of, or response to your work as you might like or anticipate. One hundred people can see the same work and have 100 different reactions (all different than the artist's) and this is the beauty of art. It belongs to the viewer as much as to the creator.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree with you. When I used to do fine-art showings, I never titled my work beyond a word that was easily interpreted many ways...I always want my viewer to get out of it something from within themselves, not what I tell them they should...if that makes any sense
Complete sense to me, Brad...just not to many, many others unfortunately.
It's funny, you watch a tv show or movie, listen to a song, read a book and somehow you are able to formulate an opinion on whether or not it hits you and whether you like it or not without anyone trying to explain the thing to you or give you info on it's making or the author's intentions. But not so with art that is "fit for galleries or museums?" Remember, the vast majority of work you see in a museum is void of such statements and they did not exist for the vast majority of art's history. Conceptualism has won, it seems.
totally.
Post a Comment