I am a little bit confuse about the the lecture I read. However through this lecture I could feel something called "Helpless" in it. When we see the same painting, we have different understanding. Though it is very nice to get different inspirations from an artist painting, however it doesn't means we have to distort the painter's ideas and what is he real want to express.
"Giorgione's primed canvas, supposing the paint to have been laid on by him: a fence
painted by J is only a painted fence. "
"I allow that J
has much the same right, whereupon he declares the red expanse a work of art, carrying it
triumphantly across the boundary as it he had rescued something rare."
These words makes me think that sometimes what an artist want to express is only the thing itself, is not always what we think about. They may have there own thoughts, they even just wanna create a pointless and simple art work sometimes. The real meaning of an art piece is really hard to express because people intend to reflect their own feelings to an art work they saw. There understanding and value reflect their personality, background and characters.
So do we really "read" an artwork?
Or we are just read ourselves, or try to read an artist background through his artwork?
No comments:
Post a Comment