One of my teacher's said, "Sometimes, its almost like even making your lunch is art." She was referring to how when we immerse ourselves in art, study it inside and out, eat, sleep and breath it...its hard to tell anymore. .I find this slightly alarming, as I have fallen deep into that rabbit hole. Its a loss of distinction. The capacity to discern. Criticism, judgement, differentiation, filtering, sifting, discarding....they are all a part of the creative act. So building that from the ground up, a good place to start is what I do not care for, what I do not agree with, what is not inspiring. Re-embracing the judgement that one must be rid of in the name of all-important open-mindedness.
We are tasked with the assignment in school now to write an artist statement by our Master Thesis Professor (MTP). I met with him to go over a few things. into these new resources which I have been starving for. He gave me some very good feedback, including one bit that I had to chew on.
I am having a difficult time separating myself from the ideas that are motivational in my work. This compulsion to write my own story, which I personally find fascinating, is limiting me. It lacks sophistication. It fails to reflect the complexity of my worldview. I was directed to the work of Tracy Emmin. A "confessional artist", in the tradition of Louise Bourgeois, her work is about barfing out her personal life. Louise Bourgeois, whose work I always liked, seemed much less interesting after learning that her work is motivated by the trauma she suffered after discovering her father was having an affair with the governess.
Radical vulnerability can be useful in art, and in human relationships. However, it is so potent, that maybe a little goes a long way-too much can be offensive, like garlic.
Also, my recent experience with cleaving my way out from the grip of a narcissist has left me raw with distain for that weakness of egomania. MTP also spoke about the origin of the art in me, what is getting sent, and what is getting received. After rereading Death of the Author by Roland Barthe, I needed to get through that initial response of (grad-school-green) acceptance, and settle on certain points. Very reactionary. Why does the author have to be dead? Why can't they just dial it in? A work of art is a product of billions of choices; in this state of fluidity, it reaches a certain audience across a rather vast spectra.
MTP encouraged specifics: good answers to good questions. Inquiry--deep inquiry, even if its the very beginning of a deep inquiry. He also suggested reading up on semiotics. This may have been a response to my blurb about "the failure of language".
*~*~*
No comments:
Post a Comment