[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Art, skill, communication, failure



At 10:26 AM 3/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:20 AM 3/26/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>if a designed piece
>>doesn't communicate to the audience, it has failed. i think in *some* art,
>>communication appears to be a main objective, but certainly not in all art.
>>a work of art does not fail for not communicating. the purpose of art... i
>>think there are many purposes. to teach, to please, to disturb;
>
>But to teach, please or, disturb...  It (the artwork) must *communicate*
>it's intent.

This all seems so loaded with some of the basic art and cultural theory
issues of our time:
what does it mean to communicate?
what is the audience?

Is there really such a thing as a work of art which does not communicate at
all?

Why can't there be art which provokes us to find out "how" it communicates?
problematizing this whole process of negotiation among artist, art work,
and audience?

probably a lot more questions as well

isn't it our love of such questions (at least in part) that keeps us making
and looking at art, books, and the world?

charles


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]