As a final reflection, I’ve decided that as our Arts in New York City Seminar explored the arts and subsequently, current events, both political and cultural, we’ve learned that the process of an artist is just as important as the final product. Arguably, innovation as an artist is not easy, and even much harder than it used to be. There are claims that everything has been done before. The box has been filled. So, the contemporary artists who maintain vision learn to work outside the already filled box.
I saw a pattern in the art that we looked at and experienced as a class; much of contemporary art seeks significance in the process of creating it. Many artists claim that the importance and value of their piece is during the creation and rendering of it instead of the final product. I believe that aesthetic is not as stressed as it once was and as artists are testing new boundaries on abstraction and unconventionality, art has more than a surface meaning.
To name some examples, Pontus Lidberg’s Faune, which we saw at Fall For Dance wasn’t something I liked at first. It wasn’t conventional and it wasn’t easy to understand. Traditionally, we tend to like things that are easy to understand because the unknown is frustrating especially if we can’t wrap our minds around it. But, innovative artists want to show that art is not easy. That it attempts to explain what we cannot understand and that there is more to it than its presentation or end product. Another example is Aaron Young’s Greeting Card which possessed the ‘wow factor’. Young’s piece proved innovative because of the display of its process. The end product wouldn’t have proven valuable if emphasis wasn’t placed on the process. Contemporary art has proven that there certainly is more than what meets the eye.
I couldn’t agree more with your final conclusion, Ana, and I have the perfect example of how it’s true in my experiences this semester! When I’m in an art gallery, I’ve noticed something major when watching others and myself view the art. In the DeKooning Exhibit, as I walked by each piece, I noticed that most people gravitate to the tiny square explaining the piece before they step back and actually analyze it. It may seem like it’s difficult to come to this conclusion, but it makes sense. When I somebody walks by a piece and analyzes it without knowing the history or story behind it, he/ she is making judgements based on personal opinions rather than the gestalt view of the art world as a whole. To explain further, it’s like walking up to a painting and saying, “I don’t like those colors.” Meanwhile, if the explanation were read and the story was revealed, maybe the artist chose the “yucky” colors to portray a “yucky” side of society.
In my opinion, it’s difficult to analyze something without knowing the history, and this is why promote the mobile phones that speak to you in an exhibit. Those phones aren’t necessarily just for the “geeks.” They’re for a deeper understanding!
This post to me is a great way to appreciate modern art. I agree with the premise but think a few more opinions should be mentioned. Much of the “wow” factor of Aaron Young’s piece is in the way it was made. It is interesting to see the youtube video, as shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Rvqi9mvw and watch the piece being created. It enhances the work tremendously to know that methods, like using motorcycles, in which Aaron Young has used to make art. In reference to the post, I think it is simplifying the argument that modern art, and not art from the past, is more in the process. Who is to say that art many years ago was not interested in the process. There have been many portraits done by artists of artists painting. Many of the self-portraits, like the one seen here of Lebrun, http://www.batguano.com/vlbflor1.jpg is of the artist in the process of painting. It is true there are many new mediums nowadays that are being used, like motor cycles, but it is not true to say that in the past the method in which the artist painted is not interesting to the viewer. I think the art of today is more focused on method, but it is not to say that in the past artists were not.
I can easily relate your post to the one I did about initial reactions vs. acquired taste, which I learned by attending the events that we did. You say: “Traditionally, we tend to like things that are easy to understand because the unknown is frustrating especially if we can’t wrap our minds around it.” I see this happen very often. People dismiss a work of art simply because they do not understand it, just like I didn’t understand the last section of Fall for Dance at first. However, after learning about the work, people tend to change their mind for the better. Artists are trying to show that complex art is better than simple art because it opens the mind and it is innovating, refreshing, and original. Perhaps they will manage to balance initial and acquired?
I agree with both Ana and Shane on this one. Personally, when I went to MoMA and the Met two weekends ago, I found it incredibly enriching to find out, albeit from the informative white cards, how the artwork was made. Outwardly, a piece may not seem that interesting; but, when you know what techniques and materials were implemented in its creation, you gain new and additional appreciation for the piece of art. For example, one of de Kooning’s pieces on display in the Met has imprints from the newspaper in it. After reading the informative card, I found out that he never intended for that to happen; it was purely accidental, yet the resulting piece was enriched by this mistake. Furthermore, the piece that we viewed both at the Met and in class with the acid on wood was extremely interesting, partly because we do not know exactly how it was created. One aspect that I truly hope to always remember while experiencing and observing art is to first take something at face value; then, take into account its story.