14 Jan 2012


Often, I see art that catches me at first view, and I am satisfied by the expression of the forms, lines, colours and how it functions in the environment and in the context, and it is self sufficient, autonomous as a piece of art.
Then I discover that this piece of art has been given a title, and I wonder, for what purpose? Is the title an extension, does it enrich the work in any way? Probably the artist has wanted us to start thinking in a special way, the artist wants to guide us is some direction and lead our thoughts through all the associations that automatically fill our brains by the smallest hint. Why?
If the piece of art leaves your mind open, and cleanse your brain and makes you ready for the real thing in front of you, as it is, why then overload the object and the spectator with words?
Words!
We, as well as the artist, know that the very educated people who want to elucidate us need words to explain the world. Their lust for verbal analyse is crucial to their own proof of existence and they need the work of art as catalyst or excuse for showing their excellence. The newspapers and catalogues and magazines are filled with brave words about art, and often along with very few images. The words have taken the lead, and have overtaken the understanding of art, have appropriated the power of creation of art, the meaning and the aesthetic and moral value of art. Without these words, the work of art is inexistent.

No comments:

Post a Comment