Experience of art

FD

It seems like the value of art lies in the story of the artist’s experience rather that the work it self - art as an external expression of the artist. We are in a way connecting with the artists’ personal story. And that’s the point. If I cant relate to it, it can still probably teach me something, but does’nt mean anything else, and that’s okay.

The curation of exhibitions are more about the artist’s experience, life evolution. An interesting way to

To fulfil one’s guided connection with the instinctual rather than fulfilling other people’s expectations has been long sought to be the formula to authentic creation - but one’s instinctual drive probably is in some way connected to other people’s instinctual connections - hence how the relationship with the artist and the viewer is formed.

The pressure some have to need to relate to a piece of art leaves the observer in a complex and unexplained state. What am I suppose to make of this? am I supposed to make anything of it? am I not getting it?

It’s often people think, is this really art - is it worth being exhibited here - not to them -

it really isnt about reason, almost like, we dont really need a lot of words and xomplexity to explain it. the complexity lies in the feeling projected by the art piece it self - and that is the dialougue between the art and the viewer - an intangble dialougue of an ambiguise nature

Is meaning something the artist gives, or something the viewer finds?

i attended a lecture the other day about kant's interpretation of art - and the speaker's mentioned the astoosities of modern art and their meaning - like modern abstarct art that throughs the meaning back at the viewer - i feel like that's exacly what i'm doing - but i'm not sure i agree if it's a bad thing - it is really about a feeling, that's the point of art, this feeling might not be understood or absorbed by everyone, but to those who do, that's what the meainng is -

General references :