Using the vehicle of distinct aboriginal art, McMaster tells the story of aboriginal artists who want to be seen as current artists rather than art that only goes into ethnographic galleries. I totally understand where the artists are coming from with this issue -- I can see that museums in general have control over what art is seen in what category, and what if the artist didn't envision his art in that category? The article considered negotiation over meaning, critique of authority, power in authority, and visuality/display. These are all such important things in the grand sceme of museums. If museum people aren't sensitive to working closely with artists, it will be easier to accidentally misrepresent the artist and his art. Which, of course, begs the question, how important is it that the artist's work is represented accurately? It is important to the artist, but if other people interpret the work differently, isn't that part of the identity of the art? The fact that it has multiple interpretations?
As an artist myself, I would say that I really do care how people interpret my art, but it's also my job to decide how clear or vague I want to be. If my work isn't taken exactly how I want it to be taken, it's still out in the world and impacting people in a specific way. So regardless of whether it had the desired effect, it still did something. That said, it is nice when your art is presented in a way that tells the story you wanted to tell.
So that's my rant in response to the article, and here's a picture of Luna's performance art!
No comments:
Post a Comment