I read these over the summer and I have to say that I did not enjoy reading/scanning over them again. I found them to be excessively long and it was hard for me to retain much of anything. Challenging the Literal was interesting in the way that it broke down all these ways that we speak and put into light what we usually look over. It also occurred to me that is in language can also be in art, considering that art is just a type of language/communication.
In the Bishop writing, Gillick talks about how the audience is needed to make his art, art. This is an interesting idea and I wonder if all art needs the viewer for it to be complete. Is it still art if the viewer is not there or if the viewer is there but not looking at or interacting with it? For my art and what I want it to do, the viewer has to be there looking at it.
I completely agree with what Hirschhorn says about his work “I do not want to do an interactive work. I want to do an active work. To me, the most important activity that an art work can provoke is the activity of thinking.”
I see my work as being the same. What I want from the viewer is for them to think about the work. I put a part of myself into my work hoping that it will be provoking to the viewer, even if its just for a few minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment