When I was at the Met, I walked into the gift shop and saw a copy of a painting that I found really intriguing.
This piece squeezes in an enormous amount of content, both compositionally and narratively. I was really interested to find out more about it so I looked it up online, and to my surprise, I found a response to the painting that discussed artist intent.
JT Kirkland discusses the painting and notes, “while the actual content/story in Weege's paintings doesn't interest me much, you can't help but admire her ability as a painter. Weege's paintings force you to give them some time. For me, that alone is quite an accomplishment. If I understood the complete narration in each painting I'm sure I would like the work even more.” I think it’s interesting to see that Kirkland admits to not loving the content of the painting, he nevertheless can appreciate Weege’s painting skills, supporting the claim of “Art for Art’s Sake.”
Kirkland continues to say that it makes sense to “separate understanding and enjoyment. They're often, but not always connected.” And regarding conceptual art, he feels that “if it's not clear in communicating the concept to most viewers, then it fails as a work of art.” When I read this, I have to admit I was really quite proud of myself. I’d been thinking this same thing ever since I started researching artist intent for Senior Exploration and hearing a renowned artist and writer expressing the same opinion gave my ideas a greater sense of validity.
“ When an artist paints a narrative, using conscious or subconscious symbolic elements, it doesn't necessarily mean that the image is a map to a specific destination, or a puzzle to be solved. To ask a representational artist ‘why’ is like asking an abstract artist ‘what,’ and demonstrates the viewer's unwillingness or inability to explore the possibilities.” So perfectly put. I agree that when a painting looks like it has symbolism or a narrative in it, it’s important to try and understand what the symbolism or the narrative is trying to say. But I think that simply asking why the artist used the symbolism or asking him or her what their piece means shows that the viewers aren’t willing to “explore the possibilities” on their own.
JT Kirkland discusses the painting and notes, “while the actual content/story in Weege's paintings doesn't interest me much, you can't help but admire her ability as a painter. Weege's paintings force you to give them some time. For me, that alone is quite an accomplishment. If I understood the complete narration in each painting I'm sure I would like the work even more.” I think it’s interesting to see that Kirkland admits to not loving the content of the painting, he nevertheless can appreciate Weege’s painting skills, supporting the claim of “Art for Art’s Sake.”
Kirkland continues to say that it makes sense to “separate understanding and enjoyment. They're often, but not always connected.” And regarding conceptual art, he feels that “if it's not clear in communicating the concept to most viewers, then it fails as a work of art.” When I read this, I have to admit I was really quite proud of myself. I’d been thinking this same thing ever since I started researching artist intent for Senior Exploration and hearing a renowned artist and writer expressing the same opinion gave my ideas a greater sense of validity.
“ When an artist paints a narrative, using conscious or subconscious symbolic elements, it doesn't necessarily mean that the image is a map to a specific destination, or a puzzle to be solved. To ask a representational artist ‘why’ is like asking an abstract artist ‘what,’ and demonstrates the viewer's unwillingness or inability to explore the possibilities.” So perfectly put. I agree that when a painting looks like it has symbolism or a narrative in it, it’s important to try and understand what the symbolism or the narrative is trying to say. But I think that simply asking why the artist used the symbolism or asking him or her what their piece means shows that the viewers aren’t willing to “explore the possibilities” on their own.
Kirkland maintains that a greater knowledge of the symbolism in the artwork might allow the viewer to greater understand the painting. “You can go too far with the explanations,” Kirkland writes. “A pre-packaged tour of a foreign city can result in perceptions that are no more accurate than the ones gathered by the unprepared tourist who stumbles around on his own.”
Still, some viewers need guidance in understand the intent of the artist. And Kirkland accepts and is able to appreciate that. “Not everyone gets it or wants to try to get it. But I am more than happy to share my ideas with a viewer if that expands their understanding of my art, and perhaps art in general.”
“I wouldn't say I want my work to exceed my intent.” Kirkland says that he’s happy if viewers find lots of meaning in his work, but still believes that “the artist's intent is a sacred and immensely important thing. It's what separates artists from people who paint.”
It seems that Kirkland feels that to understand a work of art, context is incredibly important. Creating your own interpretations is great, but it doesn't allow you to truly understand the artist. “I believe viewers should have an imagintive role in art viewing... and they should intepret for themselves. But if they want to know the artist's intent they should ask.”
“A work of art is just a glimpse into the mind of the artist. I want to get into the mind. There's more there.”
No comments:
Post a Comment