JOHN ARMLEDER

The artist, John Armleder, cares about what his audience in the scene that he is creating work for an audience. He cares that the audience, but not so much what they think. Some artist aim to be associated with one school of art or to arouse a certain feeling through their art. Armleder does not care what school of art he is associated with, but he values the audience's placement of titles that weren't origonally intended. As an artist, he says that he wants to be a part of all these different movements, and to some extent he is not part of them because he identifies with so many of them. I think artists shouldn't have to worry about what they are associated with, and while it does inform the work to art historians, the general public does not form these ties. In some scene they can interpret the are with a less clouded perception.  He himself says:
"Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself"?

He allows and wants other people to put their own perceptions on his work. Some students within Tyler create works that are supposedly based off of extensive research, but their actual presentations do not actually read the way they intended. John Armleder removes this problem by not intending a meaning. He includes intellectual play, but does not mean for a specific reading.

His interpretation of neutral or generic art makes scene. It's odd that he feels that he needs to rely previous work to give meaning and inform his decisions. I would like to think that each artist makes their own decisions without necessarily consciously thinking of previous art movements. I know that subconsciously I am influenced by everything I see, but would like to think my art is still original without acknowledging  the influences.

I think that recycling forms is still relevant today, but it has been done before. But like he said before, basically has been everything has been done before in art. It's the concept, intention, and context in which the artist displays the work that really matters. Ready made is a reference to Duchamp, who questioned  what art was. If this revolutionary artist had gone forgotten, his work would have gone unmentioned. It is good that people utilize all forms of art.

I think his pseudointelligent way of creating is creative. It seems to be his original idea that he offers to the art world. What art is has been questioned recently, and this new idea adds to the challenging of it. I think as a way of art it's interesting, I can't say that I personally would create are this way, but it is interesting to see.

I think hearing the logic to how he sets up his installations is a little insulting, but also thought provoking. The audience can not see this condescension within the work unless they are really looking for it. It is not blatant.