Lots of people arguing about this but I would say that while background and history can add interest and context to art, one also has to ask if you like a work of art, what does it matter if you know anything about the artist?
This is very modern conceit and it absolutely does influence galleries and patrons while saying nothing about the quality of the art itself. I don’t feel it is against anyone or their identity to point out that the identity is not the art itself.
Mark Rothko was over this by 1950, when he was asked to write two self-statements and said, “I have nothing to say in words which I would stand for. I am heartily ashamed of the things I have written in the past. This self-statement business has become a fad this season.”
In his case, Rothko trusted the communication between the art and the observer to do the job and worked hard to make sure there were no preconceived notions about the work at all, which is why he did not title his paintings.
I don’t generally reblog anything but I think whatever you think of this art itself, it’s good to ask question about what’s influencing you to like to dislike it.
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
origamiaround
blakekathryn
pixelskylines
kianamaiart
snowghoul
gummygunk
areudirty
