I know you warned us about this reading, but it was pretty lengthy and quite hard to grasp since we have no background and no information on the subject.
Having said that, the article discussed interesting ideas. I think what grabbed my attention most was her discussion of words and the medium with which they are inscribed. Drucker says: “language, inscribed language that is, has material qualities which contribute to its meaning” (258). That is something I have never thought about, but it seems so obvious at the same time. She mentioned Mel Bochner using chalk to send her message, which would have been different if she had used paint or anything else. The medium with which the art is created is so important and creates a different feeling within the viewer. If, for example I were to inscribe the words “love is everywhere” with paint on a wall, it might make people feel warm and positive and accepting, but if I used spray paint and made a graffiti of the same words people might feel negative towards me and the message, because of preconceived notions of who I am as a person and what kind of a message I am trying to send. Of course, there are a lot of things that affect how we view the message the artist was sending, like our past experiences, education, status and beliefs, but what the author is trying to show is that the material with which the art is created is very overlooked, but very important to creating a message. The material and how it appears appeals to our senses and creates feelings within us that we use for understanding the artist’s message as we see fit in our lives. This idea being overlooked by many artists as relevant could be one of the cruxes Drucker wants to put in the limelight.
Paulina Kijek
Though I don't necessarily agree with your example, I do see what you mean and what you're trying to say. The manner in how the words are presented gives meaning to the message that is trying to be shown.
ReplyDeleteI agree that my example might not be the best, but I think it sort of gets the point through.. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin but I wont be critical. (sarcastic of course) I like how you talk about different mediums and chose a picture with a completely different medium. It conveys a different message because it is neon lights similar to Holzers LED lights.
ReplyDeleteI was equally as interested about the ideas of language and inscribed language. I'm glad to hear you shared that interest also.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the medium in which art is presented affects the meaning of the art spoke to me as well. I, too, did not realize this, or at least I hadn't thought about it, until I read Drucker's text. However, I disagree with you when you say that you think it is being overlooked by many artists. If anything, I believe artists today are already putting the limelight on this issue on their own with their art. I guess it's probably because this class is pretty much my only exposure to art, but I definitely think that more and more artists are paying attention to their medium and the ways in which they use formatting in order to convey meaning within photos and text.
ReplyDelete