(a) Art, the work of art… it remains a huge mystery, combining idea/expression, form/composition, and material/technique. There is a whole range of theories, undoubtedly fascinating and worthwhile to explore, but presently I have so little time I have to go slow slow…. Or, stated in other words, other philosophical and real life issues do absorb me, and deserve priority. A work of art: its origin remains vague: when does it start and how? When will it end and why? What is the role of the spectator? Is he/she triggered, stirred or affected? When do we speak of art? Who decides? And what are the consequences? I am more and more inclined to a constructivist position: art is a whole of social constructs, impregnated by power relations, whereby the dominant discourse decides what is ‘art’ and what is not. A sociological-political Derrida-ian deconstruction would be most interesting and useful.
(b) The artist him/herself…. here is another mystery. Why does he create? What are his motives? Does/can he know himself? How can others know him, behind the usual masks, the walls that we ourselves are continuously constructing between ourselves. All (self) knowledge is just an approximation, temporary and variable. And with reason, for why do we expect him to be the same person this evening? Tomorrow? Or next month? Is it not more fair and reasonable to expect him to change, to seek fulfilment, internal growth?
(c) The fascinating relation between artist and his work of art. I suppose its is difficult to generalise about that, each artist being a unique person, and each work of art unique as well.
This relation is a permanency, and for that reason it is understandable that there are artists who cannot separate from their art. Maybe we should wonder about the opposite: how can an artist sell his art, part of his identity and soul? Is that a necessary but painful process? I prefer to donate my work of art to a friend rather than sell it to an outsider, a person whom I do not know.
Hier klikken om te bewerken.