the artist, artwork and the audience

its been a while~ didn't do well for my exams sigh.

anyway we were given an intro to h3 some time ago and my post today would revolve around the artist, the audience and the artwork. i guess different people have different definitions of what an artwork is, who can be considered an artist. i'm very sure my response will change from now on as i know very little about the art world. my knowledge on artists and their artwork is very, very limited. as i explore and learn more, i can say for sure that my definitions will eventually change.

but anyway, here are my thoughts at this moment.

my definition of artist is rather strict and many of you may not agree with it but its my own personal thoughts.  an artist must be someone who partakes in the making of his artwork. meaning he has to be physically involved in his work. and to call an artwork his, he has to come up with the idea of the work himself. okay this all sounds really confusing but let me try and give an example to clarify things. lets say marc quinn, most of his sculptures aren't done by him. he came up with the idea, so the artworks such as "plane" and "chemical life support" can be said to be HIS artworks. however i wouldn't call him the artist in this case because he doesn't create the sculpture himself. at most he'll pop by to check out his work and make sure everything is right but he doesn't make the mold, etc. maybe he does the mini clay armature... okay so does it make him the artist? since he made the initial clay armature itself?? my definitions are so hazy that I'm sure they'll change.. someone who helps another person create his/her work is not an artist because although he is physically involved in the creation of the artwork, the artwork is not his. and back to my definition: an artist must be someone who is physically involved IN HIS ARTWORK. yeah this is a rather strict definition and it'll be tough to categorize 'artists'. however i realize yet another loophole, and that is my definition may change yet again depending on 'leisure artists' and 'commercial artists'

the artwork. the artwork, as mentioned above, is the work created by someone. it can only be called eg. XXX's artwork if XXX came up with the idea/concept. if not it can only be called an artwork but not XXX's artwork. then again, what constitutes an artwork? i mean how do you brand it a work of art? when is a work a work of art and when is it not? what is art? if its created by the artist (link to the above para on what is the def of an artist) then its called an artwork? what if its not created by the artist? XXX comes up with the idea, but he doesn't make the work. instead AAA makes the work. so both XXX and AAA are not artists (according to my definition) but the work is placed in an art gallery. therefore is the work an artwork?? or just a work? is there even a difference between an artwork and a work of art? my definitions now are rather confusing so please don't mind me. it'll be interesting to ask yourself what do you consider an artwork, who do you consider an artist and the audience.

for audience, there's 3 kinds of audience. one is the general public. ANYONE who sees the work is immediately called an audience. whether he or she knows about the artist/background of the artist or work/ meaning behind the work. they are allowed to form their own interpretation and understanding of the work. the other kind is the intended audience. audience of that specific time/period whereby the artwork (I'm using the term loosely here) and the audience resonate with each other. e.g. duane hanson's tourist II may be intended for the people of that time whereby the dressing suits that period of time and the work is able to blend in with its surroundings. the last group of audience is the people of the artwork. the critiques, the art buyers/traders/collectors. they will have their own thoughts an ideas which may be different from others. fauvist works such as those by matisse were actually rejected by critiques of that time, saying the works resembles those of a beast. but look now, fauvism has become a well known style.

i also feel that to be an artist, one must not be too sensitive. there are many people in this world and there are many interpretations of one single work. all the various interpretations may not have been your initial interpretation/what you want others to think. however you must accept the other interpretations as they may be more insightful that your very own impression. or, you can see it in another way. your skills aren't up to par such that your technical control, composition and etc does not help in bringing out your message, such that people can derive other meaning from your work. then if you wanna be angry, you can only blame yourself. there is no contract/ obligation that others must follow your meaning. in fact, i personally feel that the audience should at least try to understand the work and derive your own meaning before listening to guides on what the artwork is like. because you will be swayed and immediately think 'ohhhh so this is what the artist meant' and your own creativity and imagination is killed. it'll be more interesting to go 'hmm i think its ...' then 'ohhhhhhhhh so its like that. but its cool that i thought of it differently/ yup yup that was what i thought too/ i knew it!' it makes art exploration much more meaningful.

also, lemme say a little on what i think the function of art is. the function of art is to EVOKE AND PROVOKE. to me, an artwork is not really effective/ interesting to me when all it does is to paint what people see. unless you're talking about skills like photorealist. their skills are so good that i can stand and stare at the painting for hours thinking of the methods the artist use to create his work. art should make you think. think about the material, the technique, the process, the message, the meaning, the hidden meanings. sometimes i would step into the shoes of the artist and think, is there anything i'll change about this work to bring about this particular meaning and why? i like artists who use new mediums and i'll think of how the work is being done. i also like artist who uses traditional medium to create interesting hidden messages. weird and unique artworks for example, merging of different animals/humans? instead of painting a scenery. i think weird works are more interesting. however, a work that is too abstract would not be able to catch my attention because its too 'far'. i cannot really 'interact' or 'click' with the works. (okay I'm losing all my words here somehow i can't think of the correct words now. maybe too tired :/) art cannot merely capture what we see because now we have cameras. art has to evoke thoughts from the audiences/provoke them, allowing them to think.

okay thats it. I'm gonna sleep. will edit this another time. bye~