CErasure ethical? Or creative?

[blansky]

Actually, I've had an instructor completely misinterpret my work during critique. Rather annoying to be honest.

BUT did he misinterpret your work or did your work say to HIM, xxxx. Your work stirred something in him.

OR did he correctly interpret what you subconsciously were trying to say but didn't consciously know you were.

OR is he full of shit.


To me, that is what art is supposed to do.

A picture of a dog is not just a picture of a dog.

It's a picture of what the viewer feels about dogs, his dog, his long lost dog, the dog he wants to buy, the dog that bit him, the dog that he has sexual interest in.....

[blansky]

Here's a "for instance" on interpretation:

What if I posted a nicely lit black and white picture of a set of beautiful female breasts with shiny nipple rings in them.

One person would say, that's hot.

Another would say that's disgusting.

Another would say I'd like to suck on those.

Another would say, I'd like to put a leash on those.

Another would say the piercer didn't get them quite straight.

Another would say those breasts are too small.

Another would say, I like barbells better than rings.



What if we took the rings out:

A lot would say, that's hot.



What if we replaced the rings with large safety pins.

One would say, that's hot.

Another would say that's disgusting.

Another would say, that's torture.

Another would say, those breasts are too small.


It's all virtually the same picture. The only difference is YOU the viewer.




Do I really need an artist statement?

[Darkroom317]

She was a grad student so probably just bullshit.

The problem is that we are taught more about the artist making a point rather than the viewer being able to freely interpret or appreciate the work. This is something I have had to deal with in art school.

Oh, look I've nearly gotten trapped in the box of bullshit that I have been trying to avoid.

Thanks Blansky for helping get out of it.

[blansky]

She was a grad student so probably just bullshit.

The problem is that we are taught more about the artist making a point rather than the viewer being able to freely interpret or appreciate the work. This is something I have had to deal with in art school.

Oh, look I've nearly gotten trapped in the box of bullshit that I have been trying to avoid.

Thanks Blansky for helping get out of it.

Well I think the artist is always (usually) trying to make a point and it may be good to try to interpret his point but maybe more importantly is art also not about what the work makes you feel.

Because just intellectually being able to interpret something is kind of an interesting puzzle but it may not be as fulfilling as the self examination of letting the work move you. And why.

One is active and intellectual.

The other is passive and emotional. Invite it in and let it arouse you.

[el wacho]

this "concept" has already been done, firstly when rauschenberg erased a de kooning then by the chapman bros altered the goya prints.

[E. von Hoegh]

If an artist has to make a statement his/her work sucks. Make a "sculpture" out of elephant turds and old gears, then tell people what it represents............. bullshit.

[MattKing]

I think the idea is fairly interesting, and most importantly isn't dishonest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like the origin of the original photographs isn't hidden in any way.

It is a bit like a musician playing an unusually edited portion of another musician's composition - the performance itself is also a statement on its own.

[Diapositivo]

It is a bit like a musician playing an unusually edited portion of another musician's composition - the performance itself is also a statement on its own.

A musician playing something is performing, and brings its own artistic contribution, a "reading" or reinterpretation of the music, performed by him.

A good musical analogy for the "work" at stake would be somebody playing a record, recorded by somebody else, through an electronic player I mean, inserting blanks here and there. Inserting blanks and cutting away bits and pieces of somebody else's performance is not a creative effort.

Another analogy with sculpture would be taking a ready-made copy of a statue (let's say the David by Michelangelo, you easily find plenty of copies), break it and "exhibit" under your name a piece of arm, a foot, half the head, etc. You may even arrange them "creatively", let's say by putting the foot above the head, but that's already much more "creative" (so to speak) than what the work at stake is.

Or you can take the same statue and put a Burkha on it. Such a statement! Or you can dress it like a pirate, or like Thomas Jefferson. Or like the Virgin Mary (that would help with promoting the work exploiting the "scandal"). It would be carnivalesque in any case, and good for Carnival. Otherwise, just pathetic. You can call it "art" because anything can be called "art".

You can exhibit an excrement in the Venice Biennale and call it art. Probably somebody did it already, in fact. That would be very Dada. Just call it "morning thought".

It's not honest, or dishonest. It's beyond that. It's just plain crap.

[jnanian]

i don't think an artist statement automatically makes something suck,
sometimes it opens the door to a different interpretation.