1) Armleder feels that the artist should, first and foremost, try to please himself, and that the artist must understand and appreciate their own work in order to create a successful show. The audience is a sort of afterthought and their reactions, while completely valid, are secondary to the initial reaction of the actual artist.
5) I do agree with his comment on generic art to an extent. I agree that if the art is not thought-provoking, it is, in a sense, unsuccessful, however, I believe that not all art must be influenced by preconceived ideas. Completely new ideas can be invented and still have the same amount of impact and still "exist" and be
considered artwork without borrowing or copying what is already known.
8) By "pseudointelligent idea" he means an idea that is intended to be clever and well-thought-out but isn't quite working. In fact, it may even fail to get the point across. I think this is a strange way to make art. I can see it being effective if the failure is intended along with the "intelligence" behind it, but yet, if the idea is developed with the intention of it not working, then the overall meaning of the work can get very confusing and unclear in my opinion.
9) I would not be interested in doing the kind of work he does in the room with the paintings of dots because I feel that I would have no connection to that kind of art. I am not a sculpture person, and certainly not to the degree of random compilation that Armleder's work often entails. I usually enjoy creating more representational art and often have trouble with abstract, so I feel like creating the kind of work Armleder creates would be challenging for me.
10) Whenever artwork is viewed, it is looked at with a mixture of vagueness and precision. Parts of the art will be easily and clearly defined and understandable while others will be more ambiguous and subjective. I find that this can be true of my artwork because sometimes I will find hidden meanings much later that I was unaware had been there before. Sometimes I will make something purely instinctually only to find that it was really my subconscious at work, creating a more vague side to my work.
11) I believe that there should be a good balance between confusion and explanation. Confusion in itself would definitely be more exciting because it adds an element of mystery or surprise to a piece, but at the same time, the viewer should not be so utterly confused that they fail to find any meaning in the work and become so frustrated that they lose interest. Any confusion that is caused should be intentional and lead up to a greater explanation in the end in order to create a meaningful piece.
12) I find his art to be beneficial to himself, but to himself only. Viewers can still appreciate the work, but if the artist is only creating it to better himself, then I feel as if he may as well not show it to the public at all. It's good to improve, but by stating that the purpose of the shows are only to please himself, then it makes the audience a sort of afterthought, as if the artist doesn't really care for their opinions (even though he states them as valid). I found his methods to be very confusing. His ways of thinking about art and creating work are vastly different than anything I've seen/experienced/read about in the past, so even though it was confusing, I was still interested. I feel that his experimentation and willingness to improve is inspiring in itself, but I was a bit put off by the fact that he seems to be fairly self absorbed and often fails to acknowledge the impact his work has on the viewers. All in all, I do feel like Armleder and his work are worth a chance because his methods and thought processes are entirely unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment