finding a field
So, one of the things that always drove me a little crazy in class, or otherwise, is the declaration of interest in a particular sub-field in art/art history.
Things like "contemporary art" or "modern art" do not cut it anymore. It has to be by medium, period, and every now and then a new term thrown about for effect. Contemporary use of digital media or the resurgence of Baroque something-or-other. Installation and public space. Post World-War anything (check!)
I don't match many of these sub-sects. I'm all over the place with time periods [DADA or German Expressionism] --or worse--the generalizations of painting and contemporary mixed media. What the f-bomb is that?? Nobody knows because everything changes every week.
I think one of my goals has to be narrowing down my focus, figuring out what I like. The only problem with this is that I don't really want to. I enjoy the fact that one day I obsess over Joseph Beuys and Claes Oldenburg installations and then the next day I'm onto Jenny Saville and Anthony Goicolea and contemporary painters and then later I'm onto "kitsch" and installation and maybe intelligent forms of video art, or taxidermy (thanks emily).
I don't know what my aesthetic is, but I know it when I see it. And I know it's not photography.
I just don't like that this seems problematic.
The one thing I know is that my interests lie in THEMES. I look for aspects of humor and irony and wordplay and things like alienation, loneliness, self-awareness and boredom, human nature and inter-relations, or just plain cleverness. I like 'ready-mades' and things with junk-art. re-furbished materials. intelligent execution. I don't like "native art" or "primitive art" or things that overtly have to do with diversity in obvious one-dimensional ways because that 'says something worthwhile'. I don't like showy displays or cop-outs like Damien Hurst.
And I don't think these things need to be restricted to a time period or medium. Pity...
Things like "contemporary art" or "modern art" do not cut it anymore. It has to be by medium, period, and every now and then a new term thrown about for effect. Contemporary use of digital media or the resurgence of Baroque something-or-other. Installation and public space. Post World-War anything (check!)
I don't match many of these sub-sects. I'm all over the place with time periods [DADA or German Expressionism] --or worse--the generalizations of painting and contemporary mixed media. What the f-bomb is that?? Nobody knows because everything changes every week.
I think one of my goals has to be narrowing down my focus, figuring out what I like. The only problem with this is that I don't really want to. I enjoy the fact that one day I obsess over Joseph Beuys and Claes Oldenburg installations and then the next day I'm onto Jenny Saville and Anthony Goicolea and contemporary painters and then later I'm onto "kitsch" and installation and maybe intelligent forms of video art, or taxidermy (thanks emily).
I don't know what my aesthetic is, but I know it when I see it. And I know it's not photography.
I just don't like that this seems problematic.
The one thing I know is that my interests lie in THEMES. I look for aspects of humor and irony and wordplay and things like alienation, loneliness, self-awareness and boredom, human nature and inter-relations, or just plain cleverness. I like 'ready-mades' and things with junk-art. re-furbished materials. intelligent execution. I don't like "native art" or "primitive art" or things that overtly have to do with diversity in obvious one-dimensional ways because that 'says something worthwhile'. I don't like showy displays or cop-outs like Damien Hurst.
And I don't think these things need to be restricted to a time period or medium. Pity...
Comments
Post a Comment