Okay, in my attempt to blog more, I’m really reaching and bring to you an artsy debate that some will like and others will turn, running and screaming to the next website they can quickly click to…
So, yesterday I’m reading the paper and there’s an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the Carnegie and a visiting artist (Mark Manders) who finds his art in ordinary objects. I’m with ya there, no argument, no problem…then I read his quote:
"If I write a sentence, you think exactly what I want you to think," Manders says. "The viewer reconstructs objects."
Oh, Mark, really? If merely putting words to paper meant an exact meaning was conveyed we wouldn’t have any "gotcha politics," that always ends up with a candidate saying "Oh, no, I wrote/said that, but it’s not that way, not what I meant." Kids all over America would earn perfect verbal SAT scores, and emails missing the context of the writer’s facial expressions, etc. wouldn’t result in the writer being fired for being insubordinate or simply an asshole.
No Mr. Manders, your art is not so different than the written word. But, perhaps, that’s not what you meant.
BTW, I love this whole orientation of art as ordinary things–just as writers take ordinary events and make them seem extraordinary. Same act, different medium and even though the tone of my post says different, I’m really not offended on behalf of all the writers in the world. It just seems that way.
Happy Thursday everyone…