The second half of Art & Fear does not quite live up to the first half. There are non-traditional breaks in text and less fundamental insight. It could be that the chapter topics move from mostly personal to mostly business-related issues.
Most of my work is abstract and I have strong opinions about traditional, academic-type painting. I believe that contemporary work that strives to imitate 17th-19th century painting is useless. I see no point in trying to recreate a Thomas Cole landscape or Monet-esque plein-air scene since they already exist. Art is more than technically creating a picture. Art is multi-dimensional and should raise questions and be unique. I loved where the authors wrote, “Artists who need ongoing reassurance that they’re on the right track routinely seek out challenges that offer clear goals and measurable feedback—which is to say, technical challenges” (95). This relates to my opinion but comes from a different perspective, saying that artists who are enveloped in technical processes fundamentally avoid the uncertainty that should accompany making art.
An interesting part of “The Academic World” describes the role of critics. The authors examine why art is constantly related to politics, culture, and other art movements. They write, “[The critic] cannot explain the finished art piece from looking at the artist, and he cannot explain the artist by viewing the finished art piece. And so art is treated like some foreign object, analyzed from afar…” (91). In addition to explaining why critics pull from so many different parts of culture, this justification reminds me of the awkwardness and overuse of the term “the piece” in reference to an artwork, making it sound foreign or a like a lone identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment