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 8 2012: so now I can see(view) your idea better,and its great...could it be said that you are not a fan of artists calling all the shots about what art means and are flipping the script and empowering millions of veiwers who fasley feel too unexperienced or qualified to feel their own opinions...in fact maybe liberating art from the cuckholds of stuffy academia ? If so,go for it...unfortunately after years of school and memorization,and test with numerical scores...I may be hesitant to have my own opinions for fear I get a bad review.(so dont scare the viewer,no matter what his opinion,even ones you dont like away.
    • Dec 8 2012: I am not really sure who calls the shots about what art means---I do think that I am totally capable of having my own experience of anything independent of whether I have been informed about it---told a story about it. It may be a different "kind" of experience but no less valuable. The notion that some would have me believe that my experience is necessarily diminished by lack of "information" is what I find objectionable and exclusionary---possibly even elitist. I am accustomed to tilting at windmills :)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.