tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post114761800119788060..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: New York Minutes: Perfection, Compromise and ProcessMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1147811185557329272006-05-16T16:26:00.000-04:002006-05-16T16:26:00.000-04:00My position is from the vantage of a “post-concept...My position is from the vantage of a “post-conceptualist,” i.e. chronologically and philosophically seeking to broaden concepts and tenets surrounding the original conceptual artists, with a view to extending both these ideas and the discourse concerning conceptual art theory. Naturally, the “traditional” approach of “Art is the object created” relates to <I>recta ratio factibilium</I>, or the “right making” designating an object’s worth in relation to art. Whether one or the other belief, theory or definition of “art” is “fashionable” is of little interest to me. What I am stressing is in right there in my original post: <I>The process is the “life” of the product, significant to the “action” of making. Understanding the “process,” or the conception, or the idea, of an artwork is of paramount importance to the “understanding” of the “finished work.”</I><BR/><BR/>If I may “unpack” this, I mean that the process “produces” the “art,” hand-in-hand with the act of making the object, but that object does not contain the “art.” Your admission (and clarification) that “Knowledge of the artist's process should not be necessary for understanding the finished work” further supports my premise, as the “understanding” of a work of art <I>more often than not</I> requires specific education, critique or analysis of the artist and the work. This “understanding” may be further benefited by the artist’s explication of the process of the making. Rarely, if ever, does a work of art relinquish the putative “meaning” without supplementary material of this kind. I went even further to state that the <I>“object is simply supplemental to the approach to the idea of the work itself.”</I> <BR/><BR/>Contrarily, art which <I>does not</I> rely on supplementary material is the more deficient, as the “understanding” or “meaning” that it generates is ambiguous or open to vast differences of conjecture. The intent of process as a generational method of art making seeks to meld the “form” with the concept.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1147808022635535432006-05-16T15:33:00.000-04:002006-05-16T15:33:00.000-04:00Of course you know I'm going to chime in to argue ...Of course you know I'm going to chime in to argue against your main point, MCB. I agree wholeheartedly with Liza Lou: Knowledge of the artist's process is not necessary for understanding the finished work. Let me refine that: Knowledge of the artist's process <I>should not be</I> necessary for understanding the finished work.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that's unnecessarily narrow. I'll say it's my feeling that art which relies on supporting text -- descriptions of process, explanations of technique, details of manufacture and measurement -- is deficient.<BR/><BR/>Art is the object created.<BR/><BR/>I know this isn't fashionable right now, but I sense the pendulum swinging....Chris Rywalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766746064219235983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1147801340849537472006-05-16T13:42:00.000-04:002006-05-16T13:42:00.000-04:00I would like to hear people's views on the Turner ...I would like to hear people's views on the Turner Prize nominations. Specifically I am interested in what my more informed peers have to say about the works of Mark Titchner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com