Posts

In the post modern art world it seems as though reactionary is by far the best word that describes the artist’s basic intentions. In this highly criticized, often over looked way of producing art, the viewer is confronted with material and processes that are not the norm, which in the final outcome of a piece forces the audience to attempt to think audience the box and challenge what they originally thought was “good” art. The artist is attempting to provoke an initial response in the viewer, causing us to respond and react immediately to whatever we’ve just seen. At first whatever were confronted with often times hasn’t been done before, and frequently contains subject matter or material that isn’t up to par in the art worlds accepted normalcy. So of course we smirk, roll our eyes, and whisper over to our friend what a bunch of bologna this so called artist is trying to get us to understand. Our heads may not be running through a series of questions as to what this piece means, but after we digest the artwork and appreciate it for arts sake then we can start asking ourselves what the true intentions or the reasons for whatever our reactions were at first glance.
This past month a conceptual piece performed by a couple started by gathering everyone into a gallery space, alluding the audience ever so carefully because they did not know exactly what it was they were about to view nor who the artists were. As the room became bustling with people the young couple started making out like they were playing seven minutes in heaven and progressively got even racier as time went on. The act itself provoked looks of disgust, the closing children’s eyes, and a few gasps here and there. At first I laughed when we found out what was actually going down but as soon as a got home I started to wonder how has society gotten to the point where simple acts of love and affection are frowned upon in a public arena, shouldn’t we have all cheered for the love birds who were so engrossed in one another they didn’t look up for ten minutes?? This is when postmodern ultimately turns to the viewers reactionary response and questions come streaming out of me.
Van Gogh’s peasant shoes have many modernistic elements that start from the very organization that peasant shoes put one into. If you wear these shoes you are known for hard working labor, bottom of the barrel wages, and a tough life. They are shown in a scene that identifies what social class the owner of the shoes belong to and can pretty much comment on a series of predestined circumstances someone would be born into during this era. In Warhol’s Diamond Shoes were shown a solarized photograph which is highly stylized, illuminating the shapes of the shoes, and unique form the shoes take on when they the are disguised under photo trickery. The viewer isn’t so much looking at four pairs of shoes, rather what other shapes and formations they take on when there not just plain old shoes. We can imagine many people for different walks of life strolling around in these, opening the work many interpretations. Whereas Van Gogh gives us an obvious view into the daily life of a peasant, Warhol opens us up to different avenues to envision his piece.

kaitig