In this week's
"Deep Thought Thursday" article, Alyson B. Stanfield raised the question "Is all risky art great?". At first I was inclined to just answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no", but then it made me think.
On one hand, to the artist who took the risk, any "risky" art they create is great, because it took some degree of guts and creativity to produce. Hence why it was a risk. On the other hand, a lot of contemporary art is touted as being risky, a word tossed in to proclaim its immediate brilliance. Plenty of "shocking" or "risky" art gets attention, but does this make it great or memorable?
But going back to the individual artist taking a risk, not knowing if the experiment will work, or if the gallery will accept the piece, or if the piece will sell if it is accepted. Even if the artwork falls short of being "good" and is ultimately rejected, the artist at least learned something new from creating it.. There was some bit of information that could be carried over into the next piece, or maybe not at all.
So, I suppose I'm split down the middle on this one. If "risky" is being used as a trendy word to tell me that smearing poo on glass is great art, then perhaps I disagree. However, if risky describes the artist's struggle to grow and develop themselves, then yes, all risky art is great (despite a good or bad outcome). Either way, I think Alyson's question is a fun one to consider. :)
On one hand, to the artist who took the risk, any "risky" art they create is great, because it took some degree of guts and creativity to produce. Hence why it was a risk. On the other hand, a lot of contemporary art is touted as being risky, a word tossed in to proclaim its immediate brilliance. Plenty of "shocking" or "risky" art gets attention, but does this make it great or memorable?
But going back to the individual artist taking a risk, not knowing if the experiment will work, or if the gallery will accept the piece, or if the piece will sell if it is accepted. Even if the artwork falls short of being "good" and is ultimately rejected, the artist at least learned something new from creating it.. There was some bit of information that could be carried over into the next piece, or maybe not at all.
So, I suppose I'm split down the middle on this one. If "risky" is being used as a trendy word to tell me that smearing poo on glass is great art, then perhaps I disagree. However, if risky describes the artist's struggle to grow and develop themselves, then yes, all risky art is great (despite a good or bad outcome). Either way, I think Alyson's question is a fun one to consider. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment