This is an occurrence that I believe every artists has experienced in their life. I personally know that I have many ideas about projects and concepts that I wish to complete for the public, and I have had some of those projects and concepts be lost with the viewer. It is unfortunate but I believe that it is a learning experience in learning who your audience is and knowing the best way to reveal your project to them in order for the concept to not be lost and only remain in your mind.
"The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it is complete".
I agree with this sentence because I find the statement true that 'art is never finished'. You can always go back and change or make additions or subtractions to something. Every time it creates a new piece of art. Until a work is considered "complete" by the artist, the artist may not have even ended up with the same project that they had started with. The process of creating art can open new doors to other aspects of art which can effect the original project idea and change it. Therefore, the act of perceiving the art cannot be achieved until after the process or creation is complete.
"All ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within the conventions of art".
"These sentences comment on art, but are not art".
The first sentence is very tricky. I disagree with it because the definition of art is undefinable, therefor the concept of ideas that are concerned with art is subjective because there is not one definition that can describe what art is in its entirety. I believe there is no written out conventions of art as well. Something is simply art if we wish it to be. Art is about intent, not concerns.
The following sentence is related to the one above it. The author claims that even though these sentences comment on art, which agrees with what he previously said about ideas concerned with art are art, that they are actually not art. My point is that because he says that they are not art, they are not art. He was not intending them to be art so they are not. However, if a reader had taken a sentence from this reading and put it in an artistic setting like on a wall or changed the medium in which it was written in, that person would claim that sentence as art because they intended it to be. Though even if a reader didn't move the sentence anywhere and just looked at it as it is in the link, they would still have the ability to call a sentence art if that is how they see it. You do not need the "artist's" intent to claim something as art because the artist may not even associate himself as one. Perception is only needed from one person to label something as art.
"An artist may perceive the art of other better than his own."
I disagree with this sentence because I believe that no one knows their art better than the actual artist. You can claim that someone knows you as a person more or understands you more than you may yourself. But for art, some art ideas never reach the surface and just swim around in the mind until an idea is reached that sparks the artist to act on it. I believe that an artist can not perceive better, but can understand the execution of someone else's work better than his own if he or she does not know how to communicate to the world what they wish to create.
No comments:
Post a Comment