[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Art, skill, communication, failure
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Art, skill, communication, failure
- From: Charles Alexander <chax@THERIVER.COM>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 21:11:22 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <199703281526.IAA02714@pantano.theriver.com>
- Message-Id: <199703281633.IAA25820@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
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*
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
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,
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?