Considering interpretation and misinterpretation of art, I found this passage by Schreyach insightful:
“Those issues populate his [Newman] dense body of writings, which are a major resource for discerning his intent and interpreting his art. They are so important, in fact, that most if not all accounts of Newman’s paintings are advanced with repeated references to what the artist said about his work, using his own statements as support for claims about what it means or symbolizes.”
I recently had visitors to my studio and upon seeing a painting, they wanted clarification on what was in front of them. To my eyes, it was obvious; I am a representation painter, but perhaps I am so close to the subject, what is obvious to me, isn’t necessarily to others.
I am apprehensive of the need, and/or desire, for written explanation to justify aesthetic value. However, I also believe art criticism is paramount and can enlighten ones perspective. A work of art should, first and foremost, stand on its own through the artist’s vocabulary. One can debate the merits of how one responds to a work of art, but ultimately, its not clear to me how much it matters.
Corot said “Nothing has value except for the hunger one has for it…Things have real or fictive value only for the need or hunger for them by which we are seized…”
On a broader note, I find making my way through this book taxing, sometimes finding myself thinking, ‘enough, just look at the picture, don’t over-analyze it’. I respectfully submit this is research more than art criticism.
Considering interpretation and misinterpretation of art, I found this passage by Schreyach insightful:
“Those issues populate his [Newman] dense body of writings, which are a major resource for discerning his intent and interpreting his art. They are so important, in fact, that most if not all accounts of Newman’s paintings are advanced with repeated references to what the artist said about his work, using his own statements as support for claims about what it means or symbolizes.”
I recently had visitors to my studio and upon seeing a painting, they wanted clarification on what was in front of them. To my eyes, it was obvious; I am a representation painter, but perhaps I am so close to the subject, what is obvious to me, isn’t necessarily to others.
I am apprehensive of the need, and/or desire, for written explanation to justify aesthetic value. However, I also believe art criticism is paramount and can enlighten ones perspective. A work of art should, first and foremost, stand on its own through the artist’s vocabulary. One can debate the merits of how one responds to a work of art, but ultimately, its not clear to me how much it matters.
Corot said “Nothing has value except for the hunger one has for it…Things have real or fictive value only for the need or hunger for them by which we are seized…”
On a broader note, I find making my way through this book taxing, sometimes finding myself thinking, ‘enough, just look at the picture, don’t over-analyze it’. I respectfully submit this is research more than art criticism.