In order to judge an artwork, we must first formulate a deep understanding of the piece. This scholarly investigation will allow us to analyse and thus formulate a judgment on the merits and faults of the artistic work.
We should begin by describing the work and considering WHAT it is; e.g. a photograph, a painting, a sculpture. By identifying the medium of what we are observing, we can build a foundation for our critique. We must consider whether there is a subject contained within that can be identified, or if the artwork is our subject itself. We should also consider the observable elements of the piece, such as colours, lines, shapes, and form.
Now that we’ve established a basis for our investigation, we can begin to analyse the HOW of the artwork. What process did the artist use to create their work, and how did it result in the final piece? We can also begin to consider the artist’s principles, by examining the elements from earlier and considering how they have been constructed to work together.
Once we’ve used our eyes to gather all the clues, we can use our brain to interpret WHY the work was created. By thinking about what the artwork says we can understand what it means, and begin to make sense of it. By relying on the information, we learned through our description and analysis, we can understand important points, such as the artist’s intent, what the work represents to them, and what it should mean to a contemporary audience.
Finally, we can form a theory that connects the artwork to its set of contexts. We can consider whether the artwork fits in with the culture surrounding it, and what the opinion is of critics or experts who have discussed it publicly. By using this, along with the evidence that has been developed from our previous steps, we can evaluate the work and HENCE judge the value or success of the artwork. An important distinction to remember, is that we are judging not the artist but the artwork they have produced.
B.
I chose the work “Bad Dog (2013)” by Richard Jackson as an example of terrible public art. The artwork is a 24-foot-tall sculpture, made from 52 digitally cut out pieces of fiberglass and other composite materials, that were assembled on site. It depicts a dog, with its leg cocked, urinating yellow paint onto the side of the Orange County Museum of Art building. The sculpture is a smooth and undetailed depiction of a dog that, despite the size, possesses normal proportions.
The context of the dog urinating onto an art gallery is intended to provoke a response from the residents of Newport Beach, which has traditionally been a conservative community. It’s making a comment that art doesn’t need to be put on a pedestal, and that a lot of art lacks humour. The artist has been referred to as a Neo-Dadaist, and this work is consistent with the traditions of Dadaism, which rejected the aestheticism of modern capitalist society. However, although it might succeed ideologically, it is a physically unremarkable sculpture that attacks the establishment in such a simple and puerile manner that it is unable to possess any intellectual depth. The size of the sculpture also makes it unavoidable, in an attempt to increase the shock value, which seems like an immature and unnecessary attempt to seek attention.
References:
1. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/15/entertainment/la-et-cm-richard-jackson-20130217
2. http://www.ocregister.com/2013/02/19/bad-dog-sculpture-gets-attention-but-no-biscuit/
No comments:
Post a Comment