"The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."
- LawrenceWeiner responding to a question from Liam Gillick in "Between Artists"
pg20
Everyone perceives reality differently. That being said, it is nearly impossible for one piece of art to change the lives of all of its viewers. Each viewer sees the work of art from their own eyes which have their own individual experiences behind them. Those experiences, memories, associations, cultural norms, and innate understandings determines how someone sees a work of art, if it affects them or not. A piece of art that changes one person's life could draw a completely neutral response from another viewer. Take, for example, this Rothco piece:
Mark Rothco Orange and Yellow - 1956
Some people look at this piece and just question its integrity as a piece of art. They either do not or cannot see past their own skepticism. Other viewers can be engulfed within the colors and be completely changed. They may understand the artist's intent, or, more likely, they are able to put their own meaning behind it, pulling from either their subconscious or their experience. These viewers are more open and less skeptical.
Every piece of art cannot affect everyone's perception. People are too different for something to be entirely universal. I think that art in the typical sense, drawing, painting, and sculpture, is art if it changes one person.
This is all said under a more classical sense of art. A different definition of art changes the answer to this prompt. The MOMA has objects that wouldn't fall under this classical definition of art.
Tupperware definitely does not fit into the classical definition, but definitely has "changed the world." But tupperware is a commodity... so where does this leave LawrenceWeiner's quote?
No comments:
Post a Comment