Log in

No account? Create an account
22 April 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Response #8  
It is difficult to reconcile this question; there is no clear answer. Insofar as the artist is the one who creates the work and makes decisions about how to produce it, he is irremovable from it. However, insofar as communication is cumbersome and only a piecemeal way to communicate the entirety of one's thoughts, in all of their implications and subtleties, art is as obscuring as any other form of communication. Before making a painting, one may actually have assumptions about an artist's thoughts that are closer than after the person views the painting; the painting may have an entirely different meaning to the viewer than the painter intended. Jung would argue otherwise, that archetypes in visual art have universal meaning, but beyond those very basic ideas, symbolism is arbitrary. Ultimately, all art is merely “form and color”, as all communication is merely a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
katrinaramsey on April 23rd, 2007 06:09 am (UTC)
i agree with you that the artist can in no way be completely separated from the works he or she creates and, in this way, the works refelct the artist. I think its a good point to make that things are often lost in translation and what a piece means to one person could mean something entirly different to another