Wasn't today's visit to the art gallery of NSW just wonderful? Indeed it was! Forgive me if a fail to give an accurate title or artist's name when describing an artwork in this little blog, my notes seem to be hiding from me!
A number of works today i found very exhilirating, however some were a little beige. A work i loved very much was the circle of doors with the metal pointy thing rotating through the holes in them! Upon reading the plaque i found the curator appreciated this work in a very different way than I. There was quite a speil written on this small plaque about how it's about 'destruction, rebirth and erotic force' (or something along those lines). I did not think it was particularly erotic. I also didn't didn't agree with a lot of things the plaque said, but that was the curator's opinion, and they are very in title to that, so a fair enough intrepratation it was, I suppose. If I put my art analyzing hat on I probably could have drawn out a number of things from the work that the curator did, but I didn't really want to. I know I should have being an art student and such, but I just wanted to appreciate because I thought it was awesome. I love to interpret art as much as the next catwoman, but sometimes I don't think it's neccecary. Can't one just appreciate art just because they think it's cool? Can I like a piece 'just because', or do i need to say I 'appreciate its astioparthitic qualities and they way it refrences (insert art movement) in a way that is very renctovariant'?
Sooo, am I allowed to appreciate art for no reason, or do i need to explain why using a repetoir of accepted "art terms"? Do we really want to live in an (art)world where everything has to have some big meaning or relevance to be accepted!? DO WE!!?? I say no, because that mean old man from the gallery who called us "stupid idiots" for leaving a note for ross gibson, would prbably be president there and make a law where no one can sing and dance! Then we'd be no better than the town folk from footloose, and i swore i would never be like them, NEVER AGAIN!
Anyway... Some other stuff i liked were the moving walls, the optical mirror tricks towards the start of the exhibtion and "Spacio Elastico". Artspace was also wonderful, the photos were great and i enjoyed the videos (exept for the boring lock picking video, but i appreciated the irony so it was cool). I also saw some cockatoo island stuff the other day! Funnily enough i appreciated the aesthetic of a lot of the machines there more than the art! The Mike Parr stuff, however was extrodinary! I didn't see the chicken killing thing (or was it a pig?) but the face stitching was very intense. Oh and also THE KRAMPUS!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure most of this doesnt make sense, but it was fun writing!!!
Peace and love!!!
-Luke!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Luke I tend to agree with your statement about accepting art, sometimes, without meaning and this point, not exactly, but similarly was brought up in a discussion at the ANSW cafe. Some members of out class said that they would prefer if there was less explaination on the blurb next to the artwork. Does this mean that we are asking to accept more art with less 'meaning', at least sometimes?
I dont know. Its like the old "What constitutes art' question. Maybe its best left to Riva Wolf.
Well, i personaly enjoy hearing other peoples opinions and interpretations of artworks, so although i had seen the biennale works at AGNSW before, i had fun seeing what you all thought of it.
but i did find in this particular exhibition the curators wrote quite one-sided, specific interpretations, especially for that fabulous Rebecca Horn piece with the doors.
(did you see the one downstairs with the egg and pendulum?, equally as good... perhaps better)
Then again, we have the ability to view the work without reading the citation if we wish...
anyway, the reason i liked this work was because of the initial impact it had on me and the immediate feelings and idieas that popped into my mind...
obviously reading the blurb didn't change my opinion of the work... or yours either Luke... just my opinion of the curators!
and yeah its probably the same people who disliked our clearly brilliant Ross Gibson interpretation.
(oh is he a lecturer at uni? his names on a door upstairs from administration...)
Yes as I briefly mentioned - he is Professor of Contemporary Arts and part of the Research Faculty at SCA this year.
I URGE YOU ALL TO GO AND HAVE A CONVERSATION!!!
It was Rebecca Horn Luke, you poor soul. I suppose because so much of her work is erotic, it's easy to just put that label on everything she does. It's almost like a typecast.
And it was a chicken m'dear.
Post a Comment