reading response

This reading resonated with my recent questioning of the expected viewing audience for produced work. The structure of school permits the expectance of weekly, educated discussion about work, which is a main highlight of being a student. The awareness of school ending brings up the responsibility we each have of finding our own satisfaction with our practice, and the necessity of finding answers to our own questions as they develop and unfold. The things we make are questions and answers in themselves that only lead to further questioning, leaving artists in a constant snowball effect of development.

It will always be strange to separate the world of creation from that of presentation, I’m not sure if the translation of the mentality of creation can communicate authentically in the viewing process. Success of the maker’s mind to be viewed through each piece is perhaps the highest goal of art, but there are so many aspects of the creation process that are inevitably lost when the piece is hung and separated from the maker. These separations are discussed in the reading, when the continuously changing audience shifts more and more from personal to estranged as the popularity rises. Widespread recognition is a primary goal for most artists, but the catch-22 is the expanding disconnect that arrives with the recognition. Dave Hickey acknowledges this well with the closing statement on page 154, “You may be assured that what is being glorified in public splendor is just the residue, a mere simulacrum from which disinterested spectators may infer the experience of participants.”