I grew up in Yonkers, went to college and grad school in the Bronx, and never stepped foot in the Guggeneheim until yesterday. (Yes, I'm a day late posting this.)There was an exhibit on modern photography and video. Some of it was completely beyond my comprehension. Some of it was interesting. With the exception of two pieces, one of which I was familiar with, I can't say I liked any of it.
One of the works consisted of about a dozen front pages of the Herald Tribune from November of 1977. The masthead and the photos were the only things on the pages - no copy. And it was interesting to look at the images as they had been layed out, just floating on the page, untethered by explanations or even cutlines.
But as I looked at the pages, I struggled with the meaning of "art." I liked it well enough. It was interesting to look at. But, I kept thinking, what had this person done, really, other than reinterpret other people's photographs or page design. (I don't know how accurately "page design" can be applied to newspapers from 1977.)
On the flip side, I argued with myself, isn't that what art is? Not necessarily the "doing" but the "imagining." Sure, anyone can do it, but only this particular woman thought to and did. Maybe it's not even in the imaging as much as it is in the doing. Because really, success on any level is achieved by the people who do, who act on their ideas.
And any exhibit that makes one thing about the meaning of art is time well spent, even if you hate all of it.
Posts
Take that a step further...if, in the process of creating something artistic, you, the creator, was made to think about how to interpret something, isn't even that enough reason to qualify it as "art". Does art even need an extended viewer, to have a positive affect? Art is in the process of creating. It is as individual as each of us. Amazing that you would come across even a piece or two that really engages you then, no?
ReplyDeleteAnd even more amazing is that there are some artists out there who can engage millions with their art. They are the ones, I think, who can tap into human archetypes.
ReplyDelete