21 year-old art student who enjoys soft music and long naps.
2011/09/21
I’m glad someone posted this, ‘cause it evokes a very big issue I have against most contemporary art.
Two weeks ago, one of my professors asked us to go to a photography exhibit as part of an assignment. There I found myself unable to understand what the fuck the artist was trying to tell the audience.. I mean , I think I understood the concept, or at least I fabricated one myself.
Anyway, It all got me thinking on Why does the understanding of an artwork has to depend so much on the explanation given by the curator? I’m not saying art should be easy to read, as that would only downgrade it. BUT! If the purpose of art is the re-cognition of something through the re-presentation of the artist THEN this re-presentation should be clear and concrete enough to allow this re-cognition. Otherwise we are forced to find that significance of re-presetation in the curator’s statement and try to make it fit with the artist’s work.
I understand that art gains significance through the interpretation given by the curators and critics, but this shouldn’t define it. The interpetations or reactions given by the spectators should, the people should, as art is social. But if dialogue between artwork and spectators can’t even be established then what the fuck is the point on having those ugly pictures hanging on the wall? Right? Right!?
(Source: fyeahartstudentowl)
[Flash 10 is required to watch video]
2011/09/03
Tonite i’m going out with my high school girl friends.
They are all taking their boyfriends.
