Thursday, October 22, 2009


When I first posted that picture and question, I immediately though, "well what is the definition of disturb"? When I use the word or hear it, I associate negativity. I looked up the definition, and it in fact means discomfort , troubling, move deeply, destroy peace or tranquility.

I do not want these thing to happen to me when I look at art. I guess I don't mind if it happens once in a while, but I do not pursue this feeling. I think maybe I should expose myself to disturbing art a little more to get to the bottom of the feelings that over come the actual work. Like the link El posted about 9-11. Such a stretch, but moving beyond the atrocity of it, and thinking about what Hirst was saying.

but when we start defining words that in turn define art, I think we loose something. We have to be careful, as artist with defining work, especially our own. Something really gets lost in the verbal translation of work. Certainly a necessary part of the process, but potentially damaging.


1 comment:

  1. agreed Banana. It's like when u are working on something new and talk about it....and its ruined. We always used to talk in crits about WHY we try to define the things we paint. Putting the label on a feeling. If you look at a painting and feel moved by it...then realize that it looks like a fish...that's all you can see. the emotion is lost.