Tergel: Response to Rebecca

One of the things that interests me about what Rebecca does for a living is the resonance she has and the influence she has. What she chooses to focus on and draw attention to in an exhibit can make or break the exhibit for her readers.

I cannot imagine having that kind of power. I have very specific and particular tastes and I think that if I were to be an art critic, I would find myself being very bipolar and extreme in reviewing and critiquing art. I either find art successful or unsuccessful. I also do not have as much knowledge about art history, American Culture and world culture to understand the many references that an artist may make.

So this brings up one of the most interesting questions about art and its critics, is: do we need to have prerequisite knowledge to appreciate artwork? The common man, coming upon an art exhibit will surely not have enough knowledge to take away the same amount of depth an art critic may derive from a show. Does this make the experience of the art lower or less meaningful for the common viewer? Does having the background knowledge and a strong understanding of the metaphors and allusions made in the work create a "better" experience and understanding of the piece?

I am still making up my own mind on this issue. I know for my current artwork, if a person did not know what Facebook or instagram was, they surely would not understand my work. In the case of work like the Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, the appreciation and artwork directly comes from the history of art and the contexts. A common man would have a hard time conjuring any appreciation or admiration for that work, without the history of art behind it.