Finishing Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word brought several thoughts to mind this week. As always, I have more questions than answers.
While I do enjoy the theory-driven aspect of Modern Art, I realized my own art does not particularly draw from the magnanimous voice of Art Theory. I mean, surely I have been influenced by it in someway- remember, children, NOTHING YOU MAKE IS ORIGINAL- but I do not look directly to any certain theory when I make. While my work contains aspects of Conceptual and Installation Art, I don't turn to the holy book of Artistic Canon every time I make. Inspiration comes more indirectly from looking at other artists' works (who in turn look at other artists' works and so on and so forth ad infinitum until we arrive, yes, back at THEORY.) Does this mean, however, that I am missing "something" from my work? Do I need to sit down and write the manifesto that defines my art?
This leads to a second and even broader question. Does theory lead to art, or does art lead to theory? Wolfe seems to heavily push the importance of theory propelling Abstract Expressionism forward, although such seems counter-intuitive.
To quote "Sad Dog Diary," "This is too much. I must pee on the bed for comfort."
No comments:
Post a Comment