Why can't the artist just announce that her work of art consists of both her
painting and her explanation of it ?
Obviously, this would be quite unconventional -- but isn't that what we expect
contemporary artists to do ?
BTW I -- if she did that, I would ignore her explanation, feeling that it
would interfere, rather than enhance, my experience with her painting. (just
as I've never paid any attention to what Smetana had to say about a trip down
the Vltava - even though I love to float down rivers, and just enjoyed that
music again last week)
BTW II -- Via email, I suggested to the artist that she post an explanation
next to each of her paintings, to which she replied: "Sometimes I think people
assume any picture that is pretty must be shallow. I feel a little unfair... I
will:" just forget it -- and let the images speak for themselves." I don't
care what others think that much!"
But... I don't quite believe that last line of hers.
************************
> if the connection between what is represented and what is implied through
this representation is based solely on a private system of signs/symbols, then
I might even
suggest that this particular work is a failure, at least as an allegory for
something. (Mr. Asthetik)
>only inferior work needs an explanation. (Boris)
>I'm thinking of "The moldau" by Smetena. Why not. (Mando)
____________________________________________________________
Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUZ1nkaYywgVpSQ7qZUAmXCp
NZLF8B8WVFUY2tWiT76BQTQCJxOOc/
