TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What a painting "means" is useless and has likely always been so.

The new freedom will be to own our own experience of what is being viewed. The notion that anyone can "know" what the artist intended is preposterous. All the knowledge in the world about what was in the artist's mind can never get you inside the artists head.

My own paintings have never been about what I had to say or what I was trying to communicate---they have always been about the viewer having their own experience---whatever that might be---and owning that experience.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 7 2012: charles,you lucky talented one,artist...who loves the raw viewer of art and...the veiwers inon intellectueal response to art, intended or not...edward presents an idea that the artists intent is the key to its value...it is an idea which could hold true in many areas of life, in your mind jobs,ect.....but it is not an idea without substance...saying intent in art,or wisedom,or perspective is included in the value of the craft......Your idea of the veiwer being the ultimate frontier is great...but this is abstract and not a thread the first time art viewer easily accepts...when it comes to points of view...you are on this page...try to stay on the veiwers page and edwards comment is included in your veiwers thesis...face the audience and claim your ideas...see where it leads..or are you really an artist who wants to limit points of view,and for what common good?
    • Dec 7 2012: Quite the contrary, I think the general point of view about art is very limiting for the viewer---I am merely adding to it---expanding the possibilities. The viewer today can be literally hamstrung by assuming it is their lack of "knowledge" that is preventing them from having a real experience with art. Even artists can be considered co-conspirators in this issue---or at least co-dependent :)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.