Log in

No account? Create an account
...:::.::. .::...:..
Moon Phase

March 2019
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Bruce [userpic]

There was something of a return to normalcy yesterday, in that I didn't get up and out of the apartment until 4:00pm.

What made it even more normal in that I was supposed to have met electrichobbit at the MoMA at 4:00pm. Surprisingly, I made it by about 4:30pm. Well, I made it out of the subway by 4:30pm. It took 10 minutes for me to find the place from there.

The good thing is that they were giving away free tickets. That was also, unfortunately, the bad thing. There was a huge line waiting to get in, and crowds of jostling people all through the place.

Though it was fun finding out I was in line about 8 people behind Debbie...

Then, of course, there were the exhibits. Against Mark's better judgment, we visited both the "Design and the Elastic Mind," and the "Color Chart" exhibits. They were... interesting.

The "Design" show was actually supposed to be about how designers add a human dimension to technological advancement - a very interesting idea.

And there were some good exhibits.

But most of it was, well, high school stuff. Just odd, little toy ideas with connected mockups, like some sort of cell phone/electroshock combination. I'm surprised they didn't have a case devoted to sporks.

Then there was the "Color Chart" exhibit. It was more, well, "art," except most of it was a sort of conceptual art that I'm just not into. I feel that when the artwork itself has to have an explanation in order to be viewed, it's not really doing its job.

So I had a great time. The opportunities for snark abounded.

Then we went downstairs and looked at some of the good stuff, before heading out into the deluge.

It was a tad rainy here in Manhattan. On the order of "soaking the lining of my leather jacket through the seams" raining. Quite impressive - it made getting home quite the adventure.

And that was the activity for the day. The rest of the evening was devoted to evaporation, and then sleep. Well, and Project Runway reruns. Today has been Full House so far, but Debbie's gone back to sleep, and I think I'll be doing that too.

Current Location: Chez Debbie
Mood: awakeawake

I'm curious - what is art's "job"?

This is far from my best-written post...

But from my point of view (which I fully recognize is far from the only one), art's "job" is producing an emotional response in the viewer.

One of the pieces was a square, I believe 12 inches on a side, colored using all of the crayons in a 12-piece pack. The square itself was, well, oddly textured, and had an odd purplish color. Any actual impact was from reading its description.

In fact, one could do without the object entirely.

I should apply for a grant...

My take on it is that the explanation forms context for the art. When we appreciate figurative art, we do it with some sort of context - the Last Supper is understood to be Jesus and his disciples eating one last meal before he goes off to save mankind/die, and we perceive it within that context. One of the fundamental motivations of modern art was rebel against that notion of context, to create art without context. Postmodernism came back and said, ok, how about we create art with manufactured context - both the context and the art are part of the piece.

I've thought a lot about what art's job is, and I don't think I agree with you, at least not entirely. I think art can provoke other responses than emotional ones - intellectual responses, or even lack of response. I have a lot of trouble defining what art should be, which I think is the way art should be - it's like defining life, or truth. It shouldn't be easy to pin down.

There's absolutely no need for anyone to agree with me. I spent quite some time listening to various people's definition of art, and trying to come up with my own.

And failing miserably.

So I decided that I'd go for what I like, which I can't define either - but which at least that is, in the end, easier to deal with than trying to apply a list of criteria.

So, basically, my personal definition of art is on a par with my definition of pornography...

You've obviously spent more time actually studying the subject than I have, which isn't surprising. My "study" has mostly consisted of being dragged through a large fraction of the museums of Europe, and listening to various art students trying to define who they were.