Originally Posted by johnapril
Firstly, I am happy to have you on this forum.
My statement was a personal observation, one that evolved as an artist who bases his work on daily practice. The process of making things is, I have also discovered, a major facet of what you termed the artistic experience. However, there is another artistic experience that I am interested in, and that is when the object is placed in public. Then something else is possible, isn't it? The object has the potential to become something encountered. What happens when a person encounters something that an artist has made? What happens when we allow ourselves to perceive art as a space and art as an occasion as well as art as an object and art as a process? Art becomes an interface. Art becomes an interaction. Art becomes a path. Art becomes a mode of communication. Art becomes something that occurs in the gap between the person and the object encountered. The question then becomes, do we show up? And, is showing up, and the risk we take by showing up, more valuable than the pricetag placed on the object by collectors? These are some of the thoughts on the forefront of my mind when I enter a space someone has created in order to show their work. It is also the aethestic I try to achieve when I create a space for someone to encounter my work. All of this is to say, I think the person who encounters art is having a very important experience. It is a personal experience, for that person, but also important to the vitality of the community.
I understand, and agree.
By "gap", you mean path, a path of transference, yes?
By "showng up", you mean honest intent? The part of the process that I am mainly referring to.
I would like to see the traditional way of viewing art, as you have described it, destroyed.
It is a convention that, in my opinion, subjugates the artist to a position below the viewer. The positions should be equal and seamless.
Most artists would not agree, I know, but I would prefer a way of understanding art that is more inclusive of the entire creative process.
The idea that a work of art is like a child you send off into the world is a little too self-suffering for me.The idea of a division between a period of creation and a new life as an object viewed, seems loaded up with the conventions and the stereotypes of the past.
I like art that melts or disappears or the only remnant is a photograph.
I like art "happenings", where the viewer becomes part of of the art.
But when it come to art that can be traded and lumbers through history with the baggage of being made a commodity, I would like to see the artists get a residual, and not be left behind in the dust as just another tragic story of how little the artist recieved for the original work.
I apologize if I seemed flippant in my dismissal of your original statement.