okay so i have just attended a talk by prof T.K Sabapathy, which led me to think of some questions and im gonna post them here, in hope that someday i will be able to answer them and if anyone who is reading this has something to say or knows the answer to any of the questions, feel free to leave a comment.
okay im so tired right now. sigh
my thoughts are all raw, so its like grammatically not correct please dont mind.
1.so firstly, mr lim k.b said that what we are doing now is not art. if you agree, theres nothing much to argue about but if you disagree and say that art is free, so why are we kept in a boundary? why are we judged and graded? doesn't it defeat the purpose of 'art' itself which is to express yourself. so if you are confined to a certain set of thinking, is it still art? still say this is art? well , but art is free. so what we are doing now is just art education, education on art, but not art itself. however, if you still insist that this is art, then what is the real meaning of 'art'?
2. our interpretations are not ours, but rather it is someone else's interpretation but we build our interpretation on it. so because we have some background knowledge of and artwork, our personal interpretations are all influenced, subconsciously influenced, by these background knowledge and who is to say that what we are doing now (in general and to art) is the right thing? what is the boundaries for right/good? what are the boundaries for art? is there even a boundary for art? this brings me back to the question: what is art actually?
3.art is created with a purpose. then can we create art without a purpose? can art be accidental?
4. no art stands alone. what are the boundaries then? is there even a boundary for art?
5.have to be socially responsible -> make the world a better place -> what do you define as good? one man's lost is another man's gain.
6. can art be judged? my interpretation is different from yours, but can you force an interpretation on me? i choose to take path A, but you say path B is better, but i just want to take path A. is it not right?
7.what is so great about mona lisa? is it because of the artist? the skill? why is da vinci's skill considered the best then? who is to say that? also, who is to say that a certain art is very good. the curators? the museum directors? i can say that matisse's art is the best, but you argue that picasso's art is the best. so who is to decide all these things? who is to decide that what we are learning now is actually the 'right' thing to do? since our own interpretation of things, are not actually ours. who knows, we may all be sleeping and this is a dream. you know inception? someone puts a thought or a mindset in your head. and you are the 'beginning of all things' with this mindset, you interpret something, and the next person interprets the same thing after hearing your initial opinion and builds on it. i dare you to say that whatever you are thinking now is purely yours and you are not influenced by some other things. its just that this is subconsciously done. so right now, my thoughts are influenced by many things, many questions, my doubts regarding certain object. there will always be a connection between one thing and another thing.
8.art is such an interesting and complicated thing. (not knowledge because that is not what art is) so what is art then? is there a distinct definition?
oh and finally, what is the diff between modern and contemporary art?????is there a distinct difference?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Artists have a social responsibility to uphold.
Art, by the party line, is "created" to enrich our lives, show us things in a different light, present opinions and ideas and to challenge public norms To touch us with beauty and grace on one hand and then tear away the facade that covers society's ills with the other. so do artists have a social responsibility to uphold? well, i think that there are two sides to this question, the answer can be "yes, artists do have a social responsibility to uphold", but it can also be "no, i do not think that artists have a social responsibility to uphold". i personally think that artists do not necessarily have a social responsibility to uphold, whether or not they are responsible for their artwork, it depends what kind of work is it, public or personal art.
why do artists have a social responsibility to uphold? nearly all artists create their work with a certain message they would like to bring across in their mind, be it public art or "personal art", there is an aim and a goal they want to achieve. take artists like Lucia Hartini, Han Sai Por, Ng Eng Teng, Rene Magritte for example, Lucia Hartini wants to express her fustration as a woman trapped in a society full of social expectations; Han Sai Por wants to remind us that human beings are part of nature and not apart from nature; Ng Eng Teng works are on humanity, anything to do with life, the essence of human qualities and emotions Rene Magritte tries to explore the subconscious of the human mind. such work tend to influence the viewers' interpretation of an artwork, and some works of art are quite controversial such as lyoto machida (who drank his own urine) and such artwork may offend people in one way or another. which brings me to the main point, whether or not artists should uphold social responsibility is actually dependent on what kind of art he/she is making, for example, public art or art for his/own leisure ("personal art") public art is usually comissioned by others, for example, an organisation, therefore the artist would probably be given a theme to work with. otherwise, his/her finished work will go through checks to ensure that its content is suitable for the public and whether it will benefit the organisation because if his/her work is so controversial, it would cause an uproar and there will probably be alot of critique regarding the artwork and the organisation allowing such works to be displayed in public. if the artist's work is to be displayed in public, then he/she ought to have the consideration to tone down the "controversial level" of the artwork as his/her artwork would be open to the public, where the young and old can view the artwork and it may offend and influence the public's perception of something.
as mentioned, an art work has the ability to influence and convey messages, which can carry hidden meanings and influence others. for example, Lucia Hartini uses symbolic colours, forms, subject matter to bring across her message, which leads us to think along the way she does. another artist to consider would be David Cerny of the Czech Republic. Cerny once suggested a masturbating woman as an installation to the top of a theater in France, complete with a water-shooting man that’ll occasionally douse the crowd. David prides himself on his enjoyment of making art that generates shock reactions in people. For instance, in Prague, David erected a statue of two kindly-seeming gentlemen. The men are naked, however, and every-other second their respective penis’ are reaffirmed into their individual grips as they shift from side-to-side shooting water, recognized as piss, down into the pool submerging their feet. You can even check-out a 360 degree view of the area by clicking here. David’s sculpture is cleverly entitled nothing less than, “Piss.” Enough said. (look at picture below) such artwork has caused an uproar and much displease among the public. some find such artwork offensive and it may have a negative influence on young children. hence, when placing art in public, i find that artists have a social responsibility to uphold. however, if it is not public art, then i think its a different story, which i will go on the explain what i mean.
non public art can be works in galleries, art work which artists do in their free time, without being comissioned. such art is personal and free and their is no justified rule as to how an artwork should be like. hence it is not necessarily for the artist to uphold social responsibility, in fact, the audience is given the choice as to whether or not they want to view the artwork, so it has nothing much to do with the social responsibility the artist should uphold. furthermore, if an artwork is too conservative, art will be stagnant and it is difficult for art to progress. also artworks are created to challenge public norms or to raise awareness regarding an issue. however, it is up to the viewers to decide whether or not they would want to view such artworks. it is not the artist's responsibility if the viewers feel uncomfortable with a certain artwork in a gallery, he/she should roughly know about the artist prior entering the gallery. even if he/she does not know about the artist, they are welcome to leave the gallery.
in conclusion, artists have a social responsibility to uphold when they engage in public art or display their art in public. so to debate whether artists have a social responsibility to uphold, i think it depends on where the art is placed.
edited in 2013/
i feel that there are different kinds of social responsibilities and though artists are essentially creative beings who express themselves in different ways, be it through art, dance, or writings, they should have some degree of awareness of the consequences of their work.
religiously sensitive works often always incite outrage and incur the wrath of many. Christ Ofili's 'Holy Mary' unfortunately incurred the wrath of NY mayor Rudolph Giuliani who threatened to withdraw fundings to Brooklyn Museum. This provocative work is part of 'Sensations:Young British Art in the Saatchi Collection' This painting, or mixed media i should say, is of a black woman, presumably, Ofili's portrayal of Holy Mary with a breast sticking out of her dress. the butterfly like cutouts surrounding the subject matter is supposed to mimic the angels that usually accompany such works. however, the 'angels' are replaced by cutouts of breasts, buttocks and private parts from a pornography magazine. Elephant dung is also showcased in the work and acting as a pedestal in which the title is carved onto it. Giuliani, together with other catholic groups were outraged and tried to sue Ofili. Another example is 'Piss Chirst' by Andres Serrano, whereby a crucifix with Jesus is submerged into a glistening yellow liquid which turned out to be urine. His work incurred the wrath of Jesse Halms (i really do not like this guy) who threatened to sue Serrano. Also, Marcus Harvey, who showcased a work in Saatchi's 1997 Sensations exhibition, depicting a Myra Hindley, a female child murderer, made of plaster casts of children's hands. This work resulted in a public outcry and was condemned. Harvey was faulted for trying to boost his fame by using such a controversial material for his art. This work was so outrageous that there were numerous attempts by the public to vandalize it . It is the artist's responsibility to be aware of the social repercussions that come with their world. As creative beings, im sure that they will be able to represent their ideas in another way, to reinvent and represent it such that it will not be visually offensive to people. Such works may promote wrong cultures and incite racial riots and chaos.
some works of art literally intrude the public space, bringing inconvenience and unhappiness to the general public. Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc' is a 3.5m rosting metal structure that stands in the middle of a public square in New York. From a bird's eye view, the structure aesthetically cuts the urban living space but from a pragmatic viewpoint of the everyday citizens who live and work around that area, this structure was an eyesore. furthermore, it resulted in the citizens having to detour to get from one part of the square to the other.
however, i believe that art is an escape and hence should not be restrictive. artists, as mentioned before, are creative beings and should have the right to express their views. nevertheless, artists do need to be aware of the repercussions their works may bring, and therefore should reinvent their methods of presenting their message as what they present would eventually affect many people of different age and backgrounds in terms of their thinking and social- moral viewpoints.
in conclusion, artists have a social responsibility to uphold when they engage in public art or display their art in public. so to debate whether artists have a social responsibility to uphold, i think it depends on where the art is placed.
edited in 2013/
i feel that there are different kinds of social responsibilities and though artists are essentially creative beings who express themselves in different ways, be it through art, dance, or writings, they should have some degree of awareness of the consequences of their work.
religiously sensitive works often always incite outrage and incur the wrath of many. Christ Ofili's 'Holy Mary' unfortunately incurred the wrath of NY mayor Rudolph Giuliani who threatened to withdraw fundings to Brooklyn Museum. This provocative work is part of 'Sensations:Young British Art in the Saatchi Collection' This painting, or mixed media i should say, is of a black woman, presumably, Ofili's portrayal of Holy Mary with a breast sticking out of her dress. the butterfly like cutouts surrounding the subject matter is supposed to mimic the angels that usually accompany such works. however, the 'angels' are replaced by cutouts of breasts, buttocks and private parts from a pornography magazine. Elephant dung is also showcased in the work and acting as a pedestal in which the title is carved onto it. Giuliani, together with other catholic groups were outraged and tried to sue Ofili. Another example is 'Piss Chirst' by Andres Serrano, whereby a crucifix with Jesus is submerged into a glistening yellow liquid which turned out to be urine. His work incurred the wrath of Jesse Halms (i really do not like this guy) who threatened to sue Serrano. Also, Marcus Harvey, who showcased a work in Saatchi's 1997 Sensations exhibition, depicting a Myra Hindley, a female child murderer, made of plaster casts of children's hands. This work resulted in a public outcry and was condemned. Harvey was faulted for trying to boost his fame by using such a controversial material for his art. This work was so outrageous that there were numerous attempts by the public to vandalize it . It is the artist's responsibility to be aware of the social repercussions that come with their world. As creative beings, im sure that they will be able to represent their ideas in another way, to reinvent and represent it such that it will not be visually offensive to people. Such works may promote wrong cultures and incite racial riots and chaos.
some works of art literally intrude the public space, bringing inconvenience and unhappiness to the general public. Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc' is a 3.5m rosting metal structure that stands in the middle of a public square in New York. From a bird's eye view, the structure aesthetically cuts the urban living space but from a pragmatic viewpoint of the everyday citizens who live and work around that area, this structure was an eyesore. furthermore, it resulted in the citizens having to detour to get from one part of the square to the other.
however, i believe that art is an escape and hence should not be restrictive. artists, as mentioned before, are creative beings and should have the right to express their views. nevertheless, artists do need to be aware of the repercussions their works may bring, and therefore should reinvent their methods of presenting their message as what they present would eventually affect many people of different age and backgrounds in terms of their thinking and social- moral viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)