a sucker for art theory talk
21 01 2008i was wondering if anyone else has a personal criteria, either generalized or specific when looking at artwork or critiquing artwork?
i think the whole process of art critique is interesting and how everyone sees a different facet and draws different connections, i feel like it would make an interesting psychological experiment.
personally, when i look at a piece i immediately think of it in terms of written art criticism and then use that as a jumping off point.
1. how would i write critically about this piece?
2. overall then how does it relate to broader cultural, political, social, etc. points.
3. at this point the piece should spark a connection to some other artist’s work - usually concept wise.
4. if these steps don’t work for me then i usually have a hard time talking about a piece and revert to the defaults:
- class issues/dynamics
- history/archives/science/math all as the “new art” instead of derivative “art about art”
- artistic process/behind the scenes/documentation
tell me your train of thought when it comes to looking at artwork! i always seem to have a set way because i am a very meticulous and planned-out person….
-ding
When I look at art, I do just that; I *look* at it, I “feel” it. I don’t “think” about it.
To me, it’s a visual thing, a visceral thing, an aesthetic thing. It has nothing to do with anything even remotely associated with any kind of psychological experiment.
Unless the work is blatantly SUPPOSED to induce academic and/or cognitive thought (say, political cartoons or documentary/social photography, for examples) I don’t look at art with any “criteria” other than “does this move me aesthetically/viscerally, or not?” I don’t much care WHY it does or doesn’t. Politics are politics, anthropology is anthropology, and art is art. They certainly CAN be talked about in relation to each other, and in certain situations probably SHOULD be talked about in relation to each other, but I don’t think it’s necessary, and certainly don’t think it should be the primary intention or disposition with which one should (dare I say it, ever) enter a “dialog” with a piece of visual language.
Talking “about” art is a necessary evil invoked by academics. A piece of art either “works” or it doesn’t to each individual viewer. While understanding the anthropological context in which the piece was made may help the viewer “appreciate” the historical significance of the piece, it doesn’t affect whether the piece “moves” the viewer or not, when left standing alone with no context.
But then we begin the endless rhetoric of “what IS art?” followed by what art should “do”, and “how” it should “do” that which it “does.”
In no way do I mean to demean your, or anyone else’s, “way” or “intent” or “objective” in viewing/experiencing art. Please understand that my statements are simply *my* way of ingesting art. But maybe that’s the difference between folks who talk about art, and folks who make/made art.
But think about it in terms of other things that you experience through your senses: the SMELL of a rose– you either like it or you don’t. While it may be interesting to some folks WHY you either like it or not, that information can ONLY be, at most, secondary to the initial fact that you either enjoy it or you don’t. The taste of a banana– you can TALK to me about it till you turn blue, but until i have TASTED a banana, I still cannot EXPERIENCE it. Same with art. *I* think, it’s meant to be EXPERIENCED first (and maybe, only), and talked/”thought” about/deconstructed/analyzed lastly.