hi all,
it has been my experience that the viewer of art feels compelled to identify
it with some 'thing' of thier own so as to make it a pleasant and comfortable
experience. in the realm of the abstract and especially the geometric
abtraction IMHO the viewer seeks a comfort level. if you view a beuys
installation in a museum and stay there a while this is especially so. unless
the viewer has 'art world' information they might be totally bewildered. it
somehow has the flavor of an inside joke.
just a few thoughts as i watch the time so i am having a beer at 3 o'clock.
cheers!
as for anti-art, i'm not so sure i know what that means. van gogh was making
art that was unaceptable during his lifetime but it wasn't anti-art because
that was not his intention; he wanted very much to be accepted and if you read
his letters to theo he wanted this with all his being. way farthur down the
line i think the early fluxus movement was anti-art with the happenings and
all but it was and is also art.
time to water the garden, where i have some idea of what i am doing.
bye, carol :)
Sol Nte wrote:
> I would go one step further and say that we can only be sure that meaning is
> taken out based upon the degree of meaning that is perceived by the observer
> within the work. We can conceive of an art made without any regard to
> meaning (automatic writing for example) but it is very difficult to conceive
> of an audience response that is not based upon their perception of some
> meaning or lack of meaning in the art to which they're responding.
> Feel free to take meaning out of the above...be warned however that very
> little has been put in!
>
> tata,
>
> Sol.
--
carol starr
taos, new mexico, usa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
