The Open Work is a concept that was introduced to us this term. I won't delve too far into the book the theory's from or anything, as we've been doing a lot of that in lectures recently. So instead I'll talk a bit about my thoughts on the concept.
The concept is very basic at heart: that there are really two perceptions that come together when someone looks at some artwork. The first is the artist's perspective when the picture was created. This includes the creator's motives, their feelings, what they were depicting, and other features they chose to add to the picture. The other party here is the viewer. Whilst the viewer doesn't contribute to the piece itself, they do bring a lot of other things to the equation. The viewer's life experiences make up most of their part of this. Unless the viewer had an identical set of life experiences to the creator, they'll see the piece differently to them. And other people will see it differently too. It's all about what people can relate to. Different people will see different things in a piece of art, and therefore will view it differently.
This is a useful thing to keep in mind as a creator, especially as one who generally works for a (theoretically) larger audience. I can't just produce something that works for me and nobody else. In a commercial world, my pieces have to be relatable, so that most people who view it can find something in it they can associate with. This highlights the importance of test groups and market research, as well as helping to push away the notion that creators are always right.
This brings me to the negative part of this talk. The discussions of Open Work have highlighted many of the flaws in the world of art as we know it. Firstly comes the 'Grand Canyon' artists as I think of them here. The artists who intentionally create their work to be as open as physically possible. This is the kind of artwork that's always 'up for interpretation'. The sort of artwork we'll puzzle over for ten minutes then walk away having each thought of a different idea about what it is. The sort of artwork that leaves everything up to the viewer. Now in some cases this can be perfectly acceptable, when the artist leaves intentional traces of things for everyone to find. When the artist tries to guide us to finding things. When they make the picture out of shapes that can connect to things we know. In essence, like the Rorschach test. Whilst they're specifically ambiguous, they're created with elements in them that we can attach to. This is fine.
What isn't fine is when artists create artwork with no intention of form whatsoever, leaving nothing for the viewer to work with. Leaving things so wide open they manage to practically break the term. Because in making works so incredibly open, they've actually created closed works. Works where the artist sees the picture the same as the viewer. A wide area of absolute zero. We're talking about true surrealism here. Completely abstract art. Art that contains nothing of meaning whatsoever. Art that despite all else, is a true waste of space. It's lazy, and struggles to call itself art.
The other variant upon this is the 'fingerprint lock'. This applies to art that's so personal that nobody else can see it in anywhere close to a complete view. Because from my point of view, a truly open piece of work is one that everyone can see something different in, but come away having felt that that was the complete meaning. ''Fingerprint lock' art is generally the same as the description above, except it isn't closed, as it means something unbelievably personal to its creator. But nobody else can gain anything close to a complete meaning from it because it's too personal. This type holds far more value, but pushes against the concept of art. Because art isn't really for a single person. It's for others to look at too. But what use is art that nobody else can relate to.
So this is my take on the open work. It's an incredibly useful concept, in both commercial and critical sense. It helps make sense of a lot of issues both my own work and in others.
No comments:
Post a Comment