About a week ago I was sitting with my friend on this comfy couch at the Crown Casino looking at the sets of chandeliers across the tall ceiling. We shared one of those golden silences and it was broken when she asked me about my thoughts on an artist who took photos of naked teens and called it 'art'.
The pictures of the naked children were in a gallery in Italy but it was closed down before it opened. A minority of people expressed that it was pornography, rather than art and this uproar caused the artworks to be closeted from the public eye. These are my thoughts:
If a man walked into the gallery looking for art, he will find art. If a pervert walked into the gallery looking for pornography, he will find pornography. Art is, and always will be, based on interpretation. Coincidentally, about a week ago I flicked through quotes by dead people (something I do more than I should) and found a quote by Gloria Leonard, a porn actress. She said "the difference between pornography and erotica is lighting."
I think Ms. Leonard was making light of the perception of pornography and erotica when she said this because though everyone is looking at the same thing, it is often viewed with different angles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that art is defined by its creator as much or more than its observer.
art is must be human creation, it must be created for esthetic value, and it must be recognized as art to be perceived as art.
well the artist was apparently well known so he was not perceived to be sick in exposing pictures naked teens and calling it art. but i believe what the artist intends and what the art becomes can be different things via interpretation.
I think Bill Henson ('the artist') was most likely pushing his luck and trying to see how far freedom of expression laws go. Having said that, he probably pushed the boundary.
Sometimes art can be viewed as;
'See as you think rather than think as you see'
I take this logic on most paintings or 'art' thats comes across. I think; how does the artist illustrate pain, joy, dismay, comfort rather than seeing the object or image in question.
If everyone took 'art' as face valve than the quality of painting would be boring, poor, and to everyone's low expectations. However, if they were radical alittle bit 'out there' or 'different' then more people would appreaciate the effort put in.
But as chris highlighted, people go into a gallery with an idea before even seeing the painting.
If a psychologist and a mother walked into a gallery, both saw the same painting of a child, whats to stop them having a strong difference of opinion...nothing.
I liked this. I agree with Chris. We perceive things and judge things with different life experience, so we can't all have the same opinions - especially when it comes to things like artwork, which is all about interpretations.
I'm a pretty logical person, and I don't know how a lot of "art" is labelled as such.
Post a Comment