When viewers are sickened, shocked and/or disturbed by art. by Eric Wong
When viewers are sickened, shocked and/or disturbed by art.
Does this call for further explanation or should the artist sit back and enjoy the reactions?
Recently, we were viewing a group show at a local museum. Groups of other onlookers lead by the museum's docents were clustering around us confused and apparently horrified. The docents, were struggling to describe what they were seeing. At first, reading the mediums and then repeating the word "disturbing" like a mantra throughout the show. We had a similar experience at the Joseph Beuys exhibition at LACMA. Nearly all the viewers around us were actually "disturbed". The mantra at this show was "this is not art". I felt the available descriptions for this show were slacking and obscure. That they were written with a misguided assumption that viewers were already familiar with Beuys work, and conceptual art.
In the instance of a public museum, textual explanations are not only necessary but require thoughtful and more comprehensive articulation. Especially, in a public art museum! As the arts, past and contemporary, are not widely accessible in education or mainstream culture. This lack of communicative effort is the key culprit, responsible for a society’s dismissal of art as an insignificant luxury. The arts, becomes a kind of secret society with mysterious rituals and coded languages.
The individual artist, can choose to elaborate on their work or to not. Whichever it may be, there are consequences. The truth is, no one really cares “what you think” or “how you feel”. If this matters to the artist, the reader/viewer must be motivated and invested in your work. No one else will take sincere responsibility to express “the what” and “the why” you do what you do. “To be” or “not to be” a misunderstood artist? That, can be a disturbing question.
Comments
Post a Comment