Alex Reiner
Entry 5 - 2/19
As an art historian the question is always pending when I view
and interpret art as to whether I'm interpreting the piece as the artist
intended, or even if the artist wanted the viewer to interpret the art on their
own. For some pieces the interpretation is
easy, but for pieces like Dali's Persistence
of Memory or basically the entire Abstract Expressionist movement, the art,
also defined as the creator's representation of a thought or idea, is almost
entirely up to the viewer to interpret and experience. It is in these cases which art as a representation
may or may not lead to an aesthetic experience.
I also wonder how much the viewer's experience, whether
aesthetic or otherwise, is shaped by the viewer's personal state. For example, if I was having a very emotional
day and walked in to a Holocaust memorial museum, I would definitely be moved
by the pieces. Is this experience aesthetic
or something else? And does everyone
need to have an aesthetic experience in order for the artist's representation to
be true and considered art?
No comments:
Post a Comment