In her last blog entry, Samantha Chase asks several intriguing questions.
"Does every piece of art have the ability to elicit many perceptions based on the viewer?"
I would say yes. Whether a piece of art is classical or modern and abstract, there are aspects and hints that can mean different things to different people. Whether or not the artist intended to elicit these various perceptions in her audience doesn't matter; people are individuals who think subjectively as well as objectively and it is entirely possible for us to arrive at different conclusions regarding part or all of a piece of art.
"Can art encompass multiple qualities, some of which can only be seen by the 'educated,' 'experienced,' or perceptually aware?"
Again, I think the answer is yes, depending on how complex the artist intended the end result to be, as well as what was going on the artist's life/mind at the time the art was being produced. In the case of intended complexity, there can be symbolism that is seen and recognized by the general public as well as the elite. More complex symbolism may be more likely to be interpreted correctly by the educated. In the case of unintended qualities in a piece of art, these may be recognized by anyone who relates to the artist's state of mind or is going through a situation similar to the one in which the artist was involved.
"Is the is of artistic identification a set point? Or is it what it is to who is experiencing it?"
I would say that it is a set point; that's what we're trying to get at in this class, isn't it? A set definition of art, a way to say, "That, regardless of whether or not I like it or what I perceive in it, is art?" But I think there will always be ways of interpreting or looking at a piece of art, other than the one accepted by "the artworld."
Which brings me to a question of my own: Who makes up the artworld?
No comments:
Post a Comment