Very glad to have this recommendation, it's been many years since the first time reading Sontag's thoughts on art and our experiences with it. I needed this reminder, thank you.
I'm an artist, and that's how I create art, out of my initial response, not out of a concept about something. I don't have a neat and clever idea I want the viewer to "get", and I'm certainly not overly bothered about what the historical context I'm creating in, every time I pick up a brush. So many people look at art as being some kind of second-hand copy of reality, or a packaged idea you have to decode to "get", or as a history lesson (museums collude with this notion, in their audio tapes meant to guide the viewer through the gallery with the "right" intellectual and emotional responses pre-recorded for them, blocking any genuine avanues to engaging with each piece, which is competing for attention with numerous other pieces). It rarely occurs to anyone to just stand on front of a real artwork with no expectations, and see what happens, or if anything does, on a visceral level as well as maybe an emotional or intellectual one. Art has its own way of speaking to the viewer, but other noises overlaid, and rushing through art, doesn't help the viewer experience it for themselves, which is what a lot of artists would like to think could happen. It's about authenticity for the artist, and could be for the viewer, too, if they wish to slow down, drop the baggage, and enjoy.
Good points. Personally, I don't mind some intellectual interpreting, and sometimes find this insightful and interesting. What I don't like is when people cling to specific, rigid interpretations of a piece of art, and suggest it is the one 'right' or 'correct' way. What that does is it sets limitations on the art, it restricts it and makes it mundane. Art that can be restricted to a literal verbal analysis is not art. Art is something that responds to a need to express something more than what words used in a conventional way can express. It speaks a language of the soul. True art is something that will defy strict literal analysis, and not even the creator of the art will understand everything about it. If one looks into the creative process of great artists one will usually find that process is mysterious, even to the artist themselves, who are acting perhaps as a kind of conduit for something. Great art has an element of mystery, without which it ceases to be art.
Amen. I am so sick of idiots coming up with bullshit to justify the existence of a piece of art. We’ve read the Emperors New Clothes. It’s obvious a lot of people haven’t
A note on pronunciation. Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are. The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI. BI sect is to cut in two pieces. TRI sect is to cut in three. But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree. So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
What are you doing correcting the pronunciation of a native speaker lol. Anyway you’re wrong. The standard American IPA for dissect is daɪˈsɛkt, the same as bisect. Your dɪˈsɛkt is also accepted, but not as the only option. If you don’t like it, take it up with the Collins dictionary
Well, if it's van Gogh there's at least enough to have thoughts lke these. But if yu're in front of a pile of trash (or other modern art), what's to do?
Very glad to have this recommendation, it's been many years since the first time reading Sontag's thoughts on art and our experiences with it. I needed this reminder, thank you.
I'm an artist, and that's how I create art, out of my initial response, not out of a concept about something. I don't have a neat and clever idea I want the viewer to "get", and I'm certainly not overly bothered about what the historical context I'm creating in, every time I pick up a brush. So many people look at art as being some kind of second-hand copy of reality, or a packaged idea you have to decode to "get", or as a history lesson (museums collude with this notion, in their audio tapes meant to guide the viewer through the gallery with the "right" intellectual and emotional responses pre-recorded for them, blocking any genuine avanues to engaging with each piece, which is competing for attention with numerous other pieces). It rarely occurs to anyone to just stand on front of a real artwork with no expectations, and see what happens, or if anything does, on a visceral level as well as maybe an emotional or intellectual one. Art has its own way of speaking to the viewer, but other noises overlaid, and rushing through art, doesn't help the viewer experience it for themselves, which is what a lot of artists would like to think could happen. It's about authenticity for the artist, and could be for the viewer, too, if they wish to slow down, drop the baggage, and enjoy.
Good points. Personally, I don't mind some intellectual interpreting, and sometimes find this insightful and interesting. What I don't like is when people cling to specific, rigid interpretations of a piece of art, and suggest it is the one 'right' or 'correct' way. What that does is it sets limitations on the art, it restricts it and makes it mundane. Art that can be restricted to a literal verbal analysis is not art. Art is something that responds to a need to express something more than what words used in a conventional way can express. It speaks a language of the soul. True art is something that will defy strict literal analysis, and not even the creator of the art will understand everything about it. If one looks into the creative process of great artists one will usually find that process is mysterious, even to the artist themselves, who are acting perhaps as a kind of conduit for something. Great art has an element of mystery, without which it ceases to be art.
Yes. Yes, yes yes. Well said.
If it makes me feel, it is art.
That’s my standard as well.
Amen.
I am so sick of idiots coming up with bullshit to justify the existence of a piece of art.
We’ve read the Emperors New Clothes. It’s obvious a lot of people haven’t
A note on pronunciation.
Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are.
The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI.
BI sect is to cut in two pieces.
TRI sect is to cut in three.
But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree.
So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
What are you doing correcting the pronunciation of a native speaker lol.
Anyway you’re wrong. The standard American IPA for dissect is
daɪˈsɛkt, the same as bisect. Your dɪˈsɛkt is also accepted, but not as the only option. If you don’t like it, take it up with the Collins dictionary
Well, if it's van Gogh there's at least enough to have thoughts lke these. But if yu're in front of a pile of trash (or other modern art), what's to do?
move on fast