1. When, if ever, is knowledge of an artist's intent in making a work of art valuable and relevant to interpreting or judging that work?
I do understand why some people find the artist's intent completely irrelevant with regards to interpreting or judging the work, but I personally find it incredibly relevant. For instance, I plan on painting a picture of my daughter where her midriff is exposed. My intent in having her stomach exposed is not to suggest a sexual tendency in children but quite the opposite. I wanted to reveal the innocent nature of Zoey by showing her formless belly; it is neither muscular nor fatty, not unlike the belly of a baby or a cabbage patch doll. For me, intent is relevant and important. With that said I believe just as there is two sides to every conversation, there are two sides to every artwork. There is the intent of the artist and then there is the interpretation of the viewer. The "conversation" or interaction that takes place is different for each viewer and may even be different for each additional viewing. So I suppose my answer is that the intent is relevant but only half of the story and may be chosen to be disregarded my the viewer if they please for the viewer may choose to value their own opinion over that of the artist's.
2. When, if ever, is biographical information of a psychological nature relevant when interpreting and judging a work of art?
In my opinion, for that is all that matters in these responses of mine, it is not relevant but it is interesting. Whether or not Vincent van Gogh was crazy or depressed does not alter my opinion of his art; In fact it does not even provide me any insight as to why his art is the way it is. With that said, I do find it interesting to find out information on an artist because it does give me insight into their life. And as an artist I do like to know how a particular artist felt while making any specific work but as a viewer I care only about how a work makes me feel while viewing it.
4. Is a "sentimental" work of art a good work of Expressive art?
Something sentimental is essentially the feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way. The fact that it is centered around the idea of self– the experiences, feelings, and views of the self– would suggest according to Expressionistic theories that it does make a good work of art. If the piece also communicates the artists' views of the world, demonstrating their insight into life or what not, then according to Cognitivist theory it would also make a good work of art. For me, when I make something and it is sentimental for me, it holds a certain level of value that not everything I create does and therefore I feel more connected to it and I do think they are good. But I suppose it all depends on the concept for the piece. Depending on the concept, the complete lack of sentiment could be what makes it good.
5. Can knowledge derived from works of art be trusted?
Can knowledge derived from the news be trusted? Anytime you derive knowledge from anything– books, tv, the internet, your parents, your friends, your teachers, art, entertainment, etc.– it should be strung through the internal filter that we all have. The legitimacy of anything should not be blindly trusted. With that said, I see no reason why knowledge through art would be any less reliable than the knowledge obtained through books. It is another form of communication and can rely knowledge beyond that of words. To disregard the information contained within a work of art would be to close yourself off to a large form of communication and an area rich in information and knowledge.
I will post the last 4 questions/answers (3, 6, 7, and 8) asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment