Decay

Comment

Comment by Linda French on February 28, 2015 at 12:26am

A lot to think about. Or maybe it's just stuff.  ; )

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 26, 2015 at 5:26pm

Two thoughts about.

The first: the ideas can ride the matter, but since the matter is destined to become, that is, to change the form that we gave, ideas must also transmigrate: in other minds, so that they can survive the impermanence of matter , change, grow. The second: Perhaps there is no time capsule big enough to hold all the meaning that we give to a work: so, it is always a choice, partial, representative, symbolic, never complete.

Comment by FinnBadger on February 25, 2015 at 2:23am

Interesting comment earlier in the discussion about changes in the materials themselves. Sometimes as I sift through my received box, a delicate piece may fall off, or tear a little. And I took down a card I made from my wall to replace it with something more recent, and couldn't believe how much it had faded in one year. I don't use archival quality printing ink, but still, I was surprised.

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 24, 2015 at 11:06pm

...and changes also the artists, because they get feedback about how viewers and, in general, society consider their art, in a way or another.

Comment by Linda French on February 24, 2015 at 7:19pm

As if artists are all engaged in an amorphous, 'butterfly effect,' process that, over time, develops and changes the collective perception?

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 24, 2015 at 10:55am

Perhaps one of the key aspects of the art, because it can be called such, is precisely to bring into play both hemispheres, both the rational that the creative one. Still, I think it is even more mysterious, as if each of us, all the time, contributed to the collective imaginary, reworking and giving back to the world. Without knowing it.

Comment by Linda French on February 22, 2015 at 10:24pm

Yes, I agree, and I know I experience that.  After having viewed some art, I feel my perception subtly changed, though not in any way I can pinpoint. like something passing between me and a bright light, too fast to catch, but feel the ripple of shadow. More poetry than analysis.

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 22, 2015 at 10:15pm

Can I give one last tip to the discussion?

As well as in communication, there is a verbal part (conscious) and a non-verbal component (unconscious), so also in an artwork the artist transmits part of his unconscious, unwittingly and without realizing it. And I am certain that the viewers (without realizing it) perceives it. There is thus a kind of silent dialogue between artist and viewers, which remains unknown but real because it goes to increase the unconscious of the "users" of arts.

Comment by Linda French on February 21, 2015 at 1:55am

Ok DVS. Glad to skip it. And I agree. The art does, and has to, stand alone. Still, without context, artistic expression may lose a great deal of its meaning. And intent is part of that context.  Linda

Comment by De Villo Sloan on February 21, 2015 at 1:46am

Linda, that's a pretty dull essay they make people read in school. The concept might be enough.

Reading interviews and artist statements about intent will always be popular. I think a main idea is that meaning has more to do with how you (or I) perceive the work than what the artist tells us we should think about the work.

And I agree - visual artists are often very disappointing when explaining what they were doing. Some times they don't even know, and they admit it. Sometimes they lie. (I wouldn't believe a word Andy Warhol said was sincere.)

Ever read Jackson Pollock explain cogently what he did? The critics had to do that for him.

I don't mean to suggest censoring an artist's statement of intent. Ultimately, I don't take it vert seriously. I look at the work. Hard.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page