Saturday, October 11, 2008
Dada
"Unland" By Doris Salcedo, is a representation or should I say an homage to the struggles of Colombian people, and their challenges of political unrest. She created these pieces in 1998, and without interpretation most viewers would never understand the meaning or inspiration behind the piece. As the progression through the history of art the background necessary to understand the art has shifted, in the past a background in the understanding and knowledge of religion is key. Through time the key has changed from the knowledge of society to being able to read works. But now in much more modern art the knowledge needed to fully understand the works of Doris Salcedo or Mark Rothko is almost impossible to understand without written information about or by the artist themselves. Now I posses a question for all to answer... Is it enough to look at a work and take what it gives you or...should you be knowledgeable in the history behind it and the artists intention for the piece?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
jacob!!!
excellent, excellent question...counter question...if we used art as a metaphor for people...is it enough to look at a person and take him/her for what they seem to be or should we become more knowledgable about their histories/lives as a means to know them?
Can art's effort at compelling us look at art by questioning, interrogating, reading, learning , talking more about it a means of compelling us to use that same facility as a means of looking at the world. That nothing is as it seems, that nothing is just cut and dry, that nothing is just what we get out of it --but is sometimes beyond just our little selves, our opinions, and our worldviews...hhhmmmm ....
Post a Comment