At the Shops

MLKstudios wrote: "My point is that it's unimportant which interpretation, if any, is actually what the artist intended. What he provided engages our mind and emotions because what he created has validity beyond its message, whatever it may have been."

If I get what you mean, the art has value simply by being well crafted. It can connect to everyone with different "messages", whether it was the original intent, or not.

A similar argument goes to back to whether beauty is an absolute. Or is it seen in the eye of the beholder. I don't know the answer to that. It's still being argued among artists and art historians, and I expect it will continue to be.



eta This is the piece Duchamp exhibited at MOMA that changed forever the direction of "modern" art:

www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/25853

No longer was intent a part of the craft (its execution), instead it was applied to the work, through imagination (and suggestion). As seen in "found art" -- like the fountain.

It gave rise to the constant question you hear often in modern art museums today. Why is THAT art? Or, my 5 year old could've done that!

While the impressionists weren't well received at first, the subjects they used are recognizable as something traditionally art worthy -- i.e. landscapes, portraits, still lifes, and of course, sunflowers. Most will agree they have artistic merit today.

Dadaism changed that. And while I agree some of it is reachable due to its structure (or form). It isn't "traditional" enough for everyone to grasp.

Hope you don't mind we borrowed your thread, Tow.

Enjoyable exchange, Matthew. We are getting closer to understanding each other. I would continue, especially along the lines of "when art becomes agit-prop" .But as you say, we shouldn't usurp Mark's thread.