The thing is what is the point of art? What should the viewer expect to feel or understand? The answer is very complex. It is so subjective, depending a lot on the viewers ability to really look & interrogate the piece. It is a dialogue between the artist & the viewer that is all about communication. The artist's part is to be able to depict something or say something through whatever medium they chose. Both halves of the equation have to be prepared to put some effort in.
The viewer needs visual intelligence. The artist needs a level of skill.
That's where I get lost in modern art generally. I don't think it's enough to say that the creativity & point of the art is in the original idea. By definition, yes, art relies on creativity. (Sadly so much is derivative or plagiarist.) There has to be some skill too. So I really don't understand a work like Tracy Emins bed. She explains it thus, " I could see; this absolute mess and decay of my life, and then I saw the bed out of that context of this tiny, tiny, bedroom". The piece has meaning for Tracy Emin. To me it feels like the "Emperors new Clothes". No one is prepared to ask why? Similarly Carl Andre's "Equivalent VIII" or more commonly "Bricks"
So I look at the skill & creativity of Leonardo da Vinci, of Monet, or Seurat. I also like Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keeffe, Roy Lichtenstein, Chuck Close.....There are so many two dimensional works I love.
However, something like Mark Rothko's "Untitled - Black on Grey" leaves me cold. Three dimensional work seems to be even more of a problem. While Jeff Koons work makes me smile, modern installations often just baffle me. If there is a message it just isn't clear enough for me to grasp.
Which brings me round full circle. If you have to have it explained to you is that your fault or the artists? If most people don't understand it, if it doesn't give them pleasure, or make them think, what is the point of it?
Or is it me?
No comments:
Post a Comment