http://www.ted.com/talks/shea_hembrey_how_i_became_100_artists.html
So let me get into my own opinions of his work (For this you'll proabably want to watch the video). So far I have mixed feelings about his work. While his concept seems pretty clever at first, I can't help but feel like all of his "character" artists are stereotypes of art practices. He projects his own notion of good art from each category. So while he claims to intend to show the mainstream conceptual art from all over, he's still only one person and only showing his own view of everything. It's interesting and appropriate for a time where sub-genres of art have branched out so much... but it also seems like a one man Core class done successfully (an SAIC freshman class). It's pretty cool that one person's conceptual interests and technical skill can be so diverse like that I've gotta say. I think what's really important though, is to keep in mind it's all him. His entire 100 artist biennial is a single project and each of his artists as well as the art are a single piece. While i find some of the art pieces to be witty I have to remind myself that it isn't confined to the physical object.
I can appreciate what he's done but I stil have mixed feelings about it. He's trying to show the diversity of artists but I think it's a little more complex than just being able to make their art. Also his explanation of what he thinks makes art successful is too simple. For example, he says that the pieces need to be explained in 5 min to his grandmother. I feel some art requires a history and/or context that may be horribly complex. But this is just what i think, and I would love to hear any comments or criticisms. Speaking of comments, the comments on the video are awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment