Does art always have to convey an intellectual concept? Should it have a hidden message, reflect life or bring awareness to a particular social/political/whatever issue?
I remember asking an artist friend about what comes first - the visual or the conceptual? Is an artwork more credible if first, a concept drives its execution? I recall my art student friends, weeks before an assignment was due, rushing to complete their conceptual diaries/scrapbooks, even though the artworks themselves were already fully formed and complete. It was very much the case of, "Now, what pictures can I cut out that'll fit the artwork I'm about to present to show that I have thought about its process?".
My artist friend sheepishly admitted that his latest public performance piece was first derived as a visual idea. Quite simply, he thought it would look pretty. The nature of that artwork was indeed, beautiful, but it also benefited from having just enough mysteriousness and quirkiness. I would even go as far as saying the performance was cryptic. However, in saying so, aren't I just trying to find meaning in a piece of work where really (and admittedly) it was inspired sans intellectual concept? In other words, there was no meaning behind it per se (as conceived by the artist), therefore does this necessarily mean no meaning can be derived from the artwork?
The next question is: Is a piece of art less credible because it lacks a depth beyond its visual aesthetic? As an audience member, do we try too hard to find meaning in art?
Which brings me to Hiroaki Umeda's Adapting for Distortion & Haptic
No comments:
Post a Comment