mezzanotte wrote:
The great thing about art is that each individual experiences a piece of artwork in their own way, so there is really no right or wrong interpretation. But if you want a good academic explanation about why art movements (Impressionists, Surrealists, Dadaists, etc.) are important and what made painters like Monet, Rosseau, Duchamp and others greats, I recommend a book by Will Gompertz, What Are You Looking At?: 150 Years of Modern Art in a Nutshell .
I might just, thanks.
I do seem to have a block of some sort with static visual art. Music and film and writing exist in directed time. They have a span and flow, and I am variously able to engage with them, or draw out why I can't. But with art, much of the time, I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at. I suppose if there's not something about the picture that immediately engages, I'm just left lost and floaty - just looking at a bunch of shapes and colours that does nothing for me. And I have no care for sculpture at all. I can be happily absorbed in contemplating a scene or topography or street furniture (how I love lamposts and telegraph poles and electric pylons!) or buildings or features thereof. But I've never seen a sculpture intended as such that I didn't have a clue as to what or how I should think of it.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
08 May 2014, 6:25 pm
