Started by Ghostboy, April 28, 2005, 05:51:06 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: GhostboyBut he's right about how no change in moral perception will ever change one's initial response to a work of art.
Quote from: GhostboyHe's right, too, in suggesting that if one is strictly and simply discussing the content of a work of art, creative context is really pretty irrelevant.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanNothing changes an initial response, because it's an initial response. I think initial responses, while they may be powerful, are by definition limited and underinformed... and only the first step. I see no reason to stop with the initial response or to romanticize it.
QuoteI guess I'm arguing against "strictly and simply discussing the content" because it involves an odd kind of self-delusion. Why can't we consider multiple things together? It's not as though considering creative context will spoil anything that doesn't deserve to be spoiled.
QuoteBut I guess that depends on whether your definition of "content" includes "context." If it doesn't, "content" is pretty meaningless. If you're talking about aesthetics, okay, great, but images like these are obviously not aesthetic-limited and beg to be contextualized.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI guess I'm arguing against "strictly and simply discussing the content" because it involves an odd kind of self-delusion. If one wants to judge something as a whole, one should consider everything. If one wants to make some convenient barriers and judge only a segment, I wonder how valuable one's understanding will be.
Quote from: cowboykurtisfilm's usually don't have an "artists statement", yet you judge them. you do not know the artists intention. just your subjective opinion to the experience.
Quote from: cowboykurtisits like looking at a breathtaking painting - loving the painting for the text of the image and then finding out that hitler painted it and hating it for the context of the creator.
Quote from: GhostboyBut what if you don't get that chance? To use a personal example - if people knew how my most recent film was made, they'd probably like it more. But they don't, and I can't expect them to - and although the information is available to those who seek it out, I can't make it an integral part of the exhibition.
Quote from: GhostboyBut unless the viewer approaches a work with preconceived notions, then contextualization is up to the viewer, and based on examination and evaluation of the content.
Quote from: cowboykurtisi think what we ( at least I) was trying to say is the intention of an artist when viewing that said artwork should be/and is irrelevent. Knowing an artist's intent ideally removes any subjective thought for the viewer -- because in essence, if we are aware of the artist intended "view" - can we have any view but that of the artist?
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman Of course I wouldn't have wanted to know those things before seeing 2001, probably because the mystery of the initial reaction is thrilling for a while. But I'm happy to learn them afterward.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanDo you think it's a tragic thing because it would end the mystery? (I don't think it would, necessarily.)
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWell, you can always find more questions. (Maybe less important ones, but questions nonetheless.)I know the feeling, but aren't questions meant to be answered? I mean, shouldn't we be satisfied if we more or less find what we're looking for?