| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
... but it can apply to many things.
URL |
Thumb |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
First, let me say that I did this typographic experiment 5 years ago, and I certainly would not develop such "statement" anymore. Furthermore, I'm a little annoyed that this piece caught lots of attention: I clearly don't think it's an interesting artistic piece at all, like all of these experiments - especially considering what I usually do. I still can quite understand why artists can relate to this and why it spread on the internet easily.
This all started out while considering conceptual art, i.e., an artform that relies on its explanation rather than its form. It came to me that some (most?) conceptual art pieces failed to make me feel any emotion, whether I knew or didn't knew their concept. Therefore, I thought "I can't discuss about this piece since I don't feel anything". Which also meant I personally had troubles considering it art.
(Un)fortunately, the way I wrote this sentence had a double and stronger meaning, the second one being of course: "You can't say it's art if there's no emotion in it". Which somehow gave me the position of judging others' art, saying what is good and what is not (in a general way and not personally). This really isn't a role I'm willing to take at all. Actually, I don't like sentences such as "Art is..." or "Theatre is..."
I quickly realized that there was a misunderstanding but I leaved the piece as it was, since people seemed to related to it anyway. I thought this came up since I'm not a native English speaker but I think that the same sentence in my birthlanguage (French) would carry the same confusion.
Over the last years, I've become more and more interested in performance arts (besides photography and other art), and the way I discuss an artpiece has evolved too. I quite rarely say that something is not good (unless the artist has clearly failed) and I always insist that I'm just giving a personal opinion.
Hope this makes sense
I think we both know that art is something very subjective, but still it isn't clear what makes art art. the intention of the maker? the outcome to the viewer? both? or something entirly different?