I've always argued that my art doesn't necessarily mean anything. I do it for the satisfaction it fulfills.
Yet now I feel this is false.
Art will always derive some meaning from the conversations and criticism it provokes. I want people to be interested in my art, and I love to hear what people have to say. Therefore the art develops meaning from society.
If we can not create meaningless art, then I need to figure out what I want my art to mean. Perhaps it doesn't center around a theme- but I do want conversation revolving around my artwork. So how do I achieve that? What do I want people to talk about?
- - - - - - - - -
Jackson Pollock is an artist that I believe suffered from this type of fame. I believe he created his artwork and his process in an attempt to express something within him. When speaking about his work he often wouldn't make much sense or contradict himself later. As critic's (ie Greenburg) started contextualizing his work, he would simply let them take over and they would be the defining factor of what is work became.

Jackson Pollock, Lavender Mist
I find myself in this same problem. I often derive meaning and intent from my work after I create it. Often I am forced by the art school/art society world, to give it some profound meaning, to add a title, to change perhaps what it was meant to be in the first place. It is amazingly frustrating, and almost impossible to escape. Society directly influences what the work turns out to be.

I find Pollock to be similar to me on more then one level. His "All over" paintings are somewhat of a irregular pattern. He is a formalist- he uses lines to create a composition, and his process evolves from the lines he creates as he creates them. He works amazingly intuitively and being one who values process over product, I appreciate watching him work.
I wouldn't say that I am particularly enthralled by his end products, but I find the concepts behind his work and the way he has been portrayed to be fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment