3. Armleder brings up an interesting point when he says, “ It’s a dynamic process: From one moment, one context, one milieu to another, everything shifts.” I like that, and I agree. In being included in so many different movements, I think it's very possible for the artist to be surprised. Why this movement, why that one? How does the artwork fit into the confines of this movement's thinking? I think that it definitely broadens your understanding of your own work, and the idea that an artwork can mean so many things to so many people really impresses me.
4. I think the quote, "Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself”, is how an artist should work. Although I think that your ideas and thought processes are inherent in the process of making the work, that no longer matters when the work is finished and up on the wall for the audience. After the work is finished, it ceases to be the playground for the artist. In an odd way, the artwork is sent to the viewer. Furthermore, the work becomes an entity of its own. Whatever the artist thought might show up within the work itself, but it's no longer his or her or zir business to dictate the thoughts of a viewer, nor is it their business to try and impress upon the viewer their thoughts of their own work. Letting the work become an entity without any pressing on the artist's part is really important. I think it adds to its longevity and gives it a life beyond your own and beyond what you can give it.
5. I agree with Armleder; I don't think an artwork can completely disassociate itself to the point that it's truly generic or neutral. One of the most inherent things about art is that it's a means of communication. It transfers intellectual processes as well as visual concepts. The only way an artwork could be completely neutral is to be non-existent. Not only that, but a human's conscious and subconscious is a product built up through influences, both inner and outer. An artwork is the outreach of a human's mind. I don't think it's possible for any product to be completely neutral, because it's created as a response to something: an event, a memory, a fleeting thought. Can an artwork be mindlessly produced? Yes, but I think what that artwork will say is a product of the artist's subconscious. It's still not neutral.
6. Armleder's “recycling of forms” is still relevant today because I think the concept behind them is universally and eternally applicable. Armleder talks about recycling the meaning the forms have become known for in order to set forth a message. He talks about how the form becomes more effective this way. In today's art, we still use concepts that contain the same meanings they held when they were first used. For example, look at how we see color; the intrinsic meanings we find with certain colors have been repeated through centuries. Look how red has a meaning. It's passion, blood, violence... so many others. In addition, there are certain forms that are so connected to certain things. The Christ figure spread out on a cross is a blatant example. The moment a figure adopts this pose in an artwork, the viewer will automatically connect the figure to martyrdom. Thus we continually recycle certain elements that have strong definitions, because they can strengthen the meaning behind our work.
8. By pseudo-intelligent idea, Armleder means that the idea only seems intelligent, but it fails in being truly intelligent. Rather than the traditional way of setting up exhibitions (as well as creating works), where the meanings of the works carry heavy symbols and allusions, he's setting his works up in such a random, unsophisticated way—a pseudo-intelligent way. And he's doing this simply because the viewer, rather than assuming that the meaning might just be pseudo-intelligent, would apply a deeper, bigger meaning to his stuff. This way of working is a bit baffling to me: I feel as though he's trying to emulate sophistry rather than twisting sophistry around. However, I appreciate the effect he's going for.
11. I think spoon-feeding an explanation to the audience is a bit condescending. It tells me that the artist doesn't think the audience is smart enough to find the meaning on their own, and even worse, it tells me that the artist doesn't trust the audience enough to think for themselves. I also think that confusing the audience is infinitely more exciting than explaining the meaning to them. If they're confused, it stands to reason that they will apply a meaning to the artwork, and that meaning will be more personal to them than anything I might come up with. Sometimes I mean for a rock to be a rock, but to the viewer, that rock might be the metaphorical earth that's crushing their shoulders. I think that's really exciting and more meaningful.
12. I really agree and empathize with Armleder's methodology, especially in the way he thinks of how his artwork will relate to his audience, and how he receives the thought processes of the audience itself. I think it echoes what I think my artwork should do and be received. Some of the things he talks about makes me raise my eyebrows, though. I especially mean his words about pseudo-intelligent ideas—I think the idea is good, but I also feel as though he's trying to fool the viewer. I suppose that's also part of the process of the pseudo-intelligent idea, but honestly I find it a bit arrogant.
No comments:
Post a Comment