The Idea of the open
mind must be questioned once again, especially considering that our world is in
such turmoil, precisely how can we claim to be open-minded. Through the art
institutions, galleries, museums, parties, and sidewalk conversations, it
appears we no longer seek to go further within the mind in trying to understand
works at hand. Instead we are a society that holt’s our believes simply on the desideratum
of what we like and dislike. When seeing a work we don’t connect with, if we
had open minds, instead of making a split second decision of there’s too much
blue, therefore that’s the only reason I need to move on. Shouldn’t we try to
deeply reflect on multiple reasons of why some artworks just aren’t our cup of tea?
Lack of interest in our disinterest was not an ideology
born from thin air; it stems from dead end mind sets. Minds sets derivative of
science’s dominance, conformatism, and viewing conditions. Yes, it’s a horrifying
thought; those are elements of society that are deeply rooted within each and
every one of us, if anything how can they be negative in the way we see?
Let’s have a mental battle against our ally science, when
a work is difficult to understand as they often are, we will look at the work
somewhat physiologically because it’s the easiest answer. For psychologist the
reason artist make work, mostly is based on sublimation, where art allows the
artist to act out unacceptable impulses by converting those behaviors into a
socially accepted form. By that reasoning we could say Jackson Pollock was an
angry man and his works are simply an expression of his convoluted emotions of
rage, and anybody who paints figures is obviously acting out sexual impulses.
From there we would move towards the more practical methods of how the artist
actually painted the painting, which more than often is the case. Trying to use
the subconscious only helps to bring you to a wall of perfunctory ideas which
are in danger of sealing the viewer off from arts spiritual essence. Meaning we
are far too involved in trying to get facts about a work, there’s too much
satisfaction in getting a couple of facts that are far too general, but all too
commonly tend to be the final insolently based judgments’ of artworks.
There is a real fine line between the ideology of self
preservation and science, its speech tends to be cold and next to emotionless.
Which is why during classroom critics analyzing student’s artworks scientifically
allows their peers to save face. The classics in stock comments and questions are
present in their suffocating boredom where any thought of enlightenment has no
chance to be born. For example, the brush work got muddy; the colors are too
bright, make it bigger, use bigger brushes, and when science talk fails an awkward
moment of silence prevails. Artist are afraid to have opinions about others
work, because they know artist are very touchy, saying something along the
lines of , “this work is the embodiment of weakness and timidity”, wouldn’t go
over very well. However if statements that are hard to bear are true to how you
feel then it’s an evident step towards humanity. Considering the idea of self
preservation is an idea against humanity itself, were your amicable and
friendly towards the outside world, but to friends and family you’re cold and
hostile.
Through conformatism we compare, but
you can’t really compare artworks, because in doing so, the viewer is living
through a nullified culture. In the way that you set a standard for what are
great artworks, but in doing so you are creating a level of greatness that
seeks to equalize the works at hand. The main point is artworks cannot be
compared, because they seek to annihilate one another by merely existing. Each
artwork is fighting for the spot that truly balances the viewer’s mind, which
tends to be misinterpreted as enjoyment. By comparing similarities of works you
are actually betraying them, to truly let the work be its own master, you have
to point out the differences of the artworks.
Viewing conditions, everyone should
know seeing a work on the internet, picture, or projections will never compare
to seeing the real thing, unfortunately it’s something that must be repeated. Every
work is unique to itself; at the same time every work requires a different way
of observing. One would not eat a watermelon in the same way you would eat an
apple, so you wouldn’t look at a Rothko in the same way you would see a Barnet
Newman. Both of those artist realized there is a specific way in which the work
must be seen for the spiritual resonance of the painting to be evoked onto the
viewer. Rothko claimed the optimum distance to see his works was 18inches, as
were Newman claimed the viewer had to walk by the painting. It’s important to
note those methods are not limitations to see the work, but a starting point
that will allow the viewer to get the most out of the work. Distance is one
thing, but light is by far the most important in terms of seeing artwork. The
absolutely best light to see work under is the suns, primarily at sunrise when the
sun is unveiling its passion. No matter how good a light bulb might be, human
manufactured light that is constant will never compare to the radiating waves
of light emanated from the sun. When looking at a painting and there is no sun it’s
as if the painting is sleeping, and you’re wearing sun glasses to see. Exactly,
why you will never be able to truly see a painting inside a museum, they wouldn’t
dare expose a painting to direct sunlight as it might fade the colors; instead
they voraciously try to extend the life’s of artworks in order to keep making a
profit. With the idea of the necessity of sun, we must ask ourselves have we
actually seen any paintings. If that’s not a terrifying notion then were truly
doomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment