liverpool biennial. yes! didn't help my creative block but was a really great platform for conversation about contemporary art and where it is today. tate modern got the big thumbs up from me i have to say! Dotted around the exhibition were films on what is art, looking at figures in the art movement like 'fountain' marcel duchamp;
Main points raised were 'is it art?' Ideas were a mix. The idea that anything can be art trigged a great conversation in the art world so is this work important? Or is it now old and tired and we as artist or audience are sick of highly conceptual art that has no presence or beauty? The 'anything is art' all meaning no aesthetic qualities, no different from the everything day the lack of craftsmanship and skill??
These question i feel are very important for the current movement of the now art history. The highly intelligent art that push away a lot of people from viewing, enjoying and embracing art. I remember seeing a talk last year where an artist put a diamond in a ash tray he questioned the viewer 'do you get it?' with a smirk i found offence as if we as the viewer were stupid as we didn't understand what he was trying to say with his work. He then continued to explain a very long winded some what tenuous link to very difficult academic books.
The question i have been wondering is, is it the fault of the artist if we don't get what he/she means from just the viewing of the art, if the work doesn't engage us in conversation, narrative or a sense of emotional responses....or is it the audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment