In response to Adrian Richards post. Yves Klein, one of the great tailors of fine invisible clothing. I dont disagree with idea that there is a prevalence of shit-art being perpetuated in the art market, and that people will buy whatever they are told is good; but to me the art of the past century is so much more than that. It transcended representation (something that no doubt came due to the invention of the photograph, and paintings need to discover what made it unique due to the ease of representation that comes with taking a photograph), it transcended historical or religious allegory (in favor of provoking the questions of perception, ideas and the huge sociological shift that came about during industrial revolution.) The problem I find inherent in this however, is that much of the art made is either made to be intentionally unintelligible or is so far removed that it requires words to illustrate its meaning. Which brings me to a question I have been thinking about a lot lately; is it a good thing that most art and art practice of today requires words in order to validate the existence or validity of a piece? Should a piece or series of work be able to communicate the artists intentions without intense over-analysis and justification supplied by the artist and their critics, just by being present in its intended context? When does a work simply become an illustration to bolster paragraphs of an individuals ideology? https://youtube/watch?v=xq3lkx-UoXc
Posted on: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:30:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015