Josh writes:
>There is something fishy about the idea that an artist puts meaning into a
work which is then extracted by a viewer. I would say that in most cases
meaning is put in, and then in most cases meaning is taken out, but then
there doesn�t have to be any correlation between the two.<
I would go one step further and say that we can only be sure that meaning is
taken out based upon the degree of meaning that is perceived by the observer
within the work. We can conceive of an art made without any regard to
meaning (automatic writing for example) but it is very difficult to conceive
of an audience response that is not based upon their perception of some
meaning or lack of meaning in the art to which they're responding.
As for Anti-art I think it's a fairly daft term in many ways because one
needs to practice art in order to practice anti-art. Anti-art is the the
mole in the organisation leaking vital information to his buddies outside
who will then use it to destroy the organisation or tunnel under it, or
build a new brown spot on your upper arm ......... depending upon what kind
of moles you're picturing ;) Of course some people (notably farmers) are
anti-mole which would make sense given the threat posed by the mole which is
in fact anti-art which I said was daft and okay maybe is but you'd still
better watch your back if you're involved in art or not, strange then also
that moles are effectively blind and feel their way around which is kind of
similar to the creative process, one feels one's way (all senses) rather
than just sees (one sense). My conclusion then is that moles are artists but
also Anti-art making them essentially contradictory creatures who feel safer
underground eating worms and trying not to get stressed about schmoozing
curators etc.
Feel free to take meaning out of the above...be warned however that very
little has been put in!
tata,
Sol.
