On Sep 18, 2005, at 8:19 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Yeah, I think it does. It implies that you had some clear
intention in the
creation of the work, and that the result met your expectations. Of
course, sometimes there's the fortuitous accident, but overall, to
me at
least, knowing why you like your own work indicates an
understanding of
what you've done, and the ability to perhaps honestly critique it.
But, what difference does it make to you, as a viewer, knowing what
the intention of an artist might have been when a work was created?
If I go to an art gallery, it matters not a whit what was going
through the artist's mind during the conception and creation of
his/her work. There it is, up on a wall, and I look at it. I like
it, or I don't. I may "get into it", and stare for hours. I may
wonder what the artist was "trying to say", but I get that from the
work, not from the artist. What I "get" may be far different than
what (if anything) the artist was trying to say, but that doesn't
invalidate the work or the artist.
Again, not to beat a dead horse (but you keep bringing these things
up), I don't think that it's up to an artist to critique his/her own
work - that's for critics. An artist creates art (or in my case, "a
photographer creates photographs"). If I could explain why I liked
some of my photos, I'd probably be a writer, not a photographer. Or a
critic.
The key is in your own words: "...An artist creates art.."
Art is a product of volition, intent. Even to the level of "I printed
this photo because its colors are pretty" is a statement of intent. A
person splashing paint on a canvas or snapping a shutter
indiscriminately isn't creating art, they're splashing paint or
making exposures. A person tossing paint on a canvas and appraising
the quality and direction of the splashes, the colors ... a person
snapping a dozen photos and picking one to show to others as
*something* that they like ... those people are practicing the
creation of art. To be an artist one must know what one is attempting
to achieve, in some way, in the practice of creating art.
Knowing what the artist had in mind when a piece was created
shouldn't mitigate your perception/interpretation of it, but it might
either resonate or contradict your interpretation. It can expand the
meaning of the piece, first seen standalone by you without knowledge
and then seen with the artist's intent in mind.
Basically, if you can't say why you like or dislike something, you
haven't really studied what effect that something has had upon you
sufficiently. It's just like the question I posed to Boris (not to
pick on Boris, but this reveals the intent of my question) earlier
about perceiving some photos as "digital": if you can't tell me why
you think it's digital, if you can't articulate what your perception
is, you likely need to look deeper and understand how and why you're
reacting as you are if you want to go further in your appreciation of
it. Otherwise, you're stuck and cannot really advance your work in
the art, or your critique of others' work.
Godfrey
