I found myself feeling conflicted after the exhibition visits during the low-residency. The simple reason being that I didn't really find them that interesting... I mean, the process of visiting was interesting, but the exhibitions I saw left me a bit 'meh'... One in particular was sparse and seemed to require a long explanation from the curator to make sense of it. I'm increasingly feeling that art should not require an explanation to be interesting. Without the explanation, I would say it was quite impenetrable. With the explanation it was only 'quite' interesting...
At first I felt very uncomfortable about this, and confided in a few other students. I thought maybe I was missing something, maybe I was at 'fault'. The answers I got were a little evasive - there seems to be a phobia about coming out and saying that you don't feel something is good... I don't know if that's just our group, or a general art 'thing'. I guess you have to accept there is no objective measure for 'good', but that shouldn't inhibit the debate!
I spent a lot of time reflecting on the fact that I felt the art was 'bad' because it was impenetrable, but actually I like a lot of art that's pretty impenetrable. So what was different? I came to the conclusion it was a couple of things 1) it felt like you weren't being given all the information to be able to start to get meaning from the art (and the meaning in turn felt too specific to be 'coincidental' to the work) and 2) I didn't CARE.. I didn't even WANT to work out what it meant! And that's when it hit me... It was BORING! It was so pared down, there was nothing to work with... For me, at least, it didn't work...
For me, 'good' art rewards your engagement... With insight, with intrigue, with great questions, or with beauty... It makes you laugh, or say 'wow', or 'what...', or sigh happily, or say 'huh!'. Ideally several of those things at once... Better still, several of those things at once, and then more of those things days later...
Of course, different people will get those things from different art, this is what makes something 'good' for me. That said, slightly gratifyingly, I happened on a review of the same exhibition a few days later that concluded it was interesting but didn't work as an exhibition as it was too 'sparse' and didn't offer enough. Yes!
I've just finished 'Seven Days in the Art World' by Sarah Thornton. Really interesting and engaging book. At the end, she answers frequently-asked-questions that she gets since publishing. She finishes with the question of what makes something art, and ends the book with this (I think) wonderful conclusion:
"The antithesis is not really between art and non-art. It's more a distinction between brave, eye-opening work and vapid, attention-seeking work. Or really creative exploration versus dull illustration. It's all art but it's not all good. Appreciation can be very personal. After looking at a lot of art, you ask yourself: is this intriguing? Deeply amusing? Do I want to spend time with it? Does it become more compelling the more I think about it?"
Love that! I need to read it again, commit it to memory, and apply it to my own work.
No comments:
Post a Comment