Friday, October 21, 2005


How apt this picture is. to describe the person painted. and to illustrate my point.

so when i was at the university art gallery seeing the collection of works by john cage (new music composer, pupil of arnold schonberg), merce cunningham (modern dancer), dove bradshaw and william anastasi (artists), i suddenly thought of the objection people ofte made against modern art. "hey, so what is it? is it like a woman or something?" at that moment, i finally figured out the problem with that objection. a portrait can be both a likeness and an art work. it is the likeness that makes the portrait a likeness, it's not the likeness that makes the portrait an art work. it is the creative element that makes the portrait an art work. similarly, there are other creative things that don't look like anything, or don't mean anything. it doesn't mean that they are not art works. they are merely not portraits of things.

2 comments:

Z said...

honestly i dunno if there really exists a clear distinction between 'likeness' and 'art work'. Modern art seems to put an emphasis on controversity and shocking effects. If people go 'huh?what is it?', confounded by possible ambiguous interpretations when they see something that recalls familiarity but not exactly, guess the work has succeeded in the milieu of 'modern art' - to bewitch you. Well just one of the elements. I dun understand modern art but all the funny colours and shapes are surprisingly enjoyable. like that highly painted Oscar Wilde...

YayADuCK said...

i've seen this guy somewhere... but really can't recollect my memory... ahhhh... he's like oscar wilde but i don't think he is...