Info & History
Art as Analysis, as analysis
22/02/08
Art as analysis, as analysis part 2
9. One cannot intend to make art unless the intention is loaded with the possibility of failure. One can intend to make a work of art, and then fail. Fail in a very real sense! Failure is an intrinsic part of art, so perhaps intention is an integral part, but I would still stick to a process of recognition, even if it is recognition of intention.
10. The intention or recognition of whom? The artist or the viewer? The artist and viewer? The artist is a viewer.
11. What is the difference between an artist and a viewer? Both artist and viewer enact the same process, they recognise intention, purpose in an object, recognising it as art (or at times not). Both proclaim, "This is Art!" So what is the difference? The viewer may proclaim an object art, but this is not a 'Performative Act' (or at least it is a failed on) he or she does nothing with this statement, other than express an opinion. The artist proclaims "This is Art!” but claims a contextual creation (authorship) to the object as well. He or she has this connection. He or she has named it, however tenuous that may be.
12. An artist is one who has artistic thoughts, and acts upon them, with serious intention (Performative Act). Although an artist does or does not intend to make art, he or she may intend to go through a process, which at the end (at the final judgment) he or she may recognise something which is/that is art).
13. The shift between the two; one who (creates) acts upon, and the one who views the object. Is there any difference to the consciousness that reviews its own actions (divided self, fragmented self?).