I agree with Greg about his observations on the conversation between faculty members and it’s relationship with regards to the “mystery” component of Ranciere’s four types of contemporary art.
Through out the essay, I was intrigued by comments such as the one on pg.84, “It’s this negotiation between the forms of art and those of non-art that permit the formation of combinations of elements capable of speaking twice: from their readability and from their unreadability.” Alluding that there is more to be read into an artwork when it is not all spelled out, leaving room for some interpretation, but yet having a point of view to start with. This reminds me ‘somewhat’ of what we discussed in the past about reading the archive as art by what is presented, as well as what is left out.
With regards to the ATC presentations. One of our esteemed faculty members made a comment about metaphor that I believe was briefly misinterpreted that he did not like metaphor. My take was more that he felt metaphor is an overused crutch for artwork that has none or little of the readability component, and is trying to rely solely on being unreadable, thus being completely open to the whim of the viewer and their own interpretations based on metaphor and analogies to there own life experiences. Of course that is my interpretation of his comment. From my own point of view, I would agree with the comment made, as I interpreted it, but it only goes to show that art comes in many forms, and is made with different goals. I don’t think any art will please everyone, nor should it.
- Kirk
No comments:
Post a Comment