I do agree with him when he talks about being considered as a part of different movements. Although being classified as a part of a movement does limit the artwork in some ways by putting it in a box, it also provides a point of reference from which it can be viewed. Armleder even says himself that he doesn’t know what he thinks about his work, so in a way, the guidelines provided by putting his art in categories helps create a more structured and finite idea when it comes to his art.
I guess I do agree with what he says about a generic or neutral art work. From what I understand, he’s saying that anything you would base art off of is something that exists either as a real object or an idea or concept. He says that he does not want to recognize his own art because that would be something completely original and an own entity all by itself. However, I don’t see how that could possibly be done. It seems by that logically that anything made by a human has to be a preconceived idea or thought. The only thing that I can think of that actually creates without thinking is nature.
I think recycling forms is a totally reasonable and legitimate idea. Anything that you draw create is going to be influenced by something in the real world. You can draw an object from your own context but you were not the one to create that form. People can only put their own spin on already existing thinks, so why not let that existing thing be a work of art? He also talks about how the use of symbols and easily recognized forms are good because you can use the preconceived ideas about that symbol to your advantage.
I don’t think I really agree with the idea of “pseudointelligen” ideas. From what I read it seems like he made these installations so that they were dumb and feigning intelligence in hopes that they would create a response that’s more original than an artwork that is actually trying to be intelligent and convey some type of idea. I feel that that concept is so farfetched and ridiculous that most people would not understand his art at all, unless they had extensive knowledge about what he was thinking at the time.
I feel that I work in a similar way when it comes to “vagueness of precision”. I gathered that he was talking about how we as humans subconsciously recognize similar shapes and forms when looking at compositions, even if they might not quite realize it. I always try to have repeating shapes in my drawings that might vary in scale or color to keep the viewer interested. He did the same thing by keeping the same compositions but varying the type of objects throughout the three rooms in his show.
As an artist, I actually prefer explaining things to the audience rather than having them just be confuse by the subject matter. I prefer art that has somewhat of a storyline to it and really transports the viewer, instead of having a piece that very few people can even begin to understand. That way, people can observe what you have to say and combine that with their own prospective and create something unique to them. I feel that if the viewer is confused they will just have much less of an attachment to a piece and just leave it.
I find the way in which he deals with art interesting but still not quite my taste. I understand that he prolonged Mosset’s show as kind of a social experiment. He seemed to be playing with the notion of the artist being this unknown figure. This indeed succeeds in reinventing his own style however it still seems to me a tad unoriginal. He just in essence made a large scale readymade, but instead of it being a urinal, it was an art show.
No comments:
Post a Comment