A little existentialism if you please. Is art about execution or idea? As a practitioner of a heavily technical medium I'm inclined towards former, but as an artist I'm inclined toward the latter. For visual artists it's an important question to consider. I feel non-visual mediums don't suffer as much from this, a poorly written and preformed piece of music is instantly recognizable, as is bad writing as well as poor acting. Yet in the visual media one is almost always forced to describe in words what the point is, why this particular stroke of color or that symbolic metaphor. The first minute of Bach's Suite for Cello leaves me breathless, and yet I've never read his personal interpretation of it. Is it the responsibility of the artist to do so, or not. Shouldn't the idea behind the work be clear if the execution was well executed. Or does it help the viewer understand a deeper, more personal meaning if the artist expands on the idea verbally. Visiting modern art shows, in all mediums, I sometimes get the feeling well crafted pieces are brushed aside as merely that. That somehow, complete control of the tools will invariably inhibit the free expressive use of them. This bothers me because unsubstantiated ideas are cheap and prolific. It takes beautiful execution in your chosen medium to portray that idea with grace. I'm a proponent of understanding every nuance of the tools you use to create your work. Chance favoring the prepared mind. I recently carved a didgerdoo while on vacation and when deciding on it's surface finish I came across an article talking about how the native Aboriginals of Australia have no distinction between art and craft, they are one in the same. Perhaps only when execution and idea meld together does true art become made. No words, no descriptions, no eloquent debates, just the inevitable magnifying glass that true art holds against the self, the species and the world.
So with that, here's a non-existential pretty flower to brighten your Sunday!
Cheers all!
No comments:
Post a Comment