Give an example from your own life in which you only fully understood and appreciated a work of art after it and the theory surrounding had been explained to you. Now think of a work of art you still dislike/don't understand and assess how an understanding of the theory behind it could change your mind
I never originally understood or liked Pablo Picasso's art but I never understood how deep his artwork really was. Cubism, as I have learned, is showing the inner depths of objects that sometimes two-dimensional cannot display as accurately. For example, Picasso wanted to show all angles of a violin in order for the viewer to gain all artistic and aesthetic pleasure from that violin. I have read some of Picasso writings and his theory is very well-developed and intelligent, as well as interesting and a pleasure to read.
I have viewed a piece of artwork that is simply conceptual and is composed of a stool with a wheel poised on top of it. I dislike this "piece of art" because I do not think it is art and there was any major artistic effort put into it. The stool merely had to be attached to the wheel and that was the extent of the effort. Contrary to Picasso's theory and work, this, I believe, has no theory and is not as developed visually. I would not consider this a sculpture or any other medium of artwork, and furthermore, I do not think the artist is sincere. However, I would be interested to read this artist's thoughts and writings. I could only know if there was a change in my thoughts when I read the theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment