It was just one thing that could make me so happy to forget my miserable week, and it happened.
I found an old friend. I owe the best times of my college years to him and I just have to say it loud to everyone. So I decided to write about it here, and it is relevant to Tameshk, because we both share the love for picking and eating Tameshk.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Not Smart Enough !
Is there any "Smart Viewer" or "Not Smart Viewer" in Art as a Subject of View? Is Art in its general sense supposed to be understandable for everybody? Is there any responsibility for artist about the viewer and his/her understanding?
This week, which was filled with readings (because of midterm exams), was full of these questions for me. I was studying about Primitivism and the famous debate of 1984, oh Boy- (lets be feminist)-Oh Girl, it is amazing how every body could react to a thing which was a fact until yesterday and today there are some doubt about some parts of it? Oh wait a minute Art Theory is created this way, I believe. Maybe I'm just fed up with my readings and that's why anything can ridiculously amaze me!
Back to the first paragraph, I really didn't want to talk about the artist's responsibility but the viewer's understanding is the important point for me. As an Art History student I have experienced that when I learn about the history of a movement or a style, I actually can understand it better. Often I feel the piece better; the thing is that I think we first feel something and then later understand it, especially when the art piece is Abstract. Sometimes we even think art has nothing for understanding and it just expresses a feeling and we are lucky enough to just feel it. Well, many times a particular painting or sculpture meant to be that way -expressing a feeling- but not always. It is certainly important for studying the history or process of a movement (mostly Modern Movements). I believe that by knowing the history of a movement better you actually know (feeling and understanding) the art piece better. I don't know really how to connect these to the notion of a Smart Viewer but I don't like it when some easily say that oh, you are not smart enough to get it.
This week, which was filled with readings (because of midterm exams), was full of these questions for me. I was studying about Primitivism and the famous debate of 1984, oh Boy- (lets be feminist)-Oh Girl, it is amazing how every body could react to a thing which was a fact until yesterday and today there are some doubt about some parts of it? Oh wait a minute Art Theory is created this way, I believe. Maybe I'm just fed up with my readings and that's why anything can ridiculously amaze me!
Back to the first paragraph, I really didn't want to talk about the artist's responsibility but the viewer's understanding is the important point for me. As an Art History student I have experienced that when I learn about the history of a movement or a style, I actually can understand it better. Often I feel the piece better; the thing is that I think we first feel something and then later understand it, especially when the art piece is Abstract. Sometimes we even think art has nothing for understanding and it just expresses a feeling and we are lucky enough to just feel it. Well, many times a particular painting or sculpture meant to be that way -expressing a feeling- but not always. It is certainly important for studying the history or process of a movement (mostly Modern Movements). I believe that by knowing the history of a movement better you actually know (feeling and understanding) the art piece better. I don't know really how to connect these to the notion of a Smart Viewer but I don't like it when some easily say that oh, you are not smart enough to get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)