To follow up on what I said in a previous thread....
Today I heard a prof talk about how "Artists like us" are "more educated than the general public."
A pretty damn bold statement. And one I wholly disagree with.
The second we start thinking that art must be produced "only by certain people", all is lost. More specifically there is a great irony in the fact that all the post-modernists running around laud the fact that post-modernism opened the art world up to "other voices", but now only "those who are educated in art" are considered worthy of having an opinion.
You know my grandfather dropped out of school at the age of 12 to become a coopers apprentice in Scotland. He sought to help feed his siblings. He later emigrated to Canada and worked as a cook in logging camps and made his way to Tacoma, Wa. (big timber town at that time). He then managed to setup a VERY prosperous insurance business and did extremly well for himself. He taught his kids well and taught them how to think. Both went on to college, but learned the most from my grandfather.
Who never went to highschool.
By the standards of many, he would be WHOLLY unqualified to comment on much of anything by their standards! Definately not art, and if you follow the logic, neither could he comment on business, politics, etc.
Keep in mind when he died, he was vastly more sucessful than the person making this statement is. And she is only a few years younger than he was when he passed away!
Point being, we can't exclude anyone's opinion as long as it is based on some manner of thought (I exclude people who randomly comment on things they have no real idea about....and by this I mean many academics!).
Can art be fun and just a lark for someone?
Can it have deep meaning?
Both are wholly valid, and wholly acceptable viewpoints.
For Aggie art isAnd you know what it works for her. I really like some of her work. I do. No deep meaning to it, just great images that I like.Quote:
I do photography becasue i enjoy it, and have fun.
Conversly, I myself am doing a very political series at this moment. It is meant to carry a message. It is just as valid as Aggie's work.
But it is NEVER more valid. NEVER. If I EVER say it is, then someone smack me! The only invalid work to me is work which is more about catering to the gallery crowd and making a huge statement with no thought into the piece. That is just mental masterbation.
But nobody can say a work done just to fulfill a personal desire is less valid than a work rife with political meaning.
And everyone who honestly enters into a conversation has a valid point to make. Education does not make you more or less qualified to offer an opinion.