In Elizabeth Grosz’s essay she begins exploring the origins of conceptual art from the view of a philosopher. Not a philosopher attempting to interpret finished work but to show the similarities within the processes of science, art and philosophy. She starts off her essay with the line, “Art does not produce concepts, it addresses problems”. I can’t agree with all of this. Yes its understood that concepts are not created they are more fallen into during ones life, and represented in the artists work. To say that art addresses problems is a huge umbrella to place over the entire art community. Much of art made today expresses nothing beyond form. She goes on to speak about art as the ability to create a sensation out of chaos. This first step is the framework of the art. Frames are represented in nearly all forms of art: music, painting, performance, etc…. Architecture in particular is a great example. We use frames, in forms of walls floor and ceiling to reterritorialize our world, creating for us a livable space out of chaos. These frames are also repeated in our windows, simple frames allowing the outside to come in the space, blurring the distinction between interior and exterior. Also in our furniture is the mimicry of our territory frames in tables, mirrors, and beds. Even before these frames emerge there is the root of art. Nature serves as the root of art it does not come from man itself. Being that I am an artist of nature I tend to agree, but a counter statement can be said of whether man also belongs to the broadened category of nature. I fully understand that Grosz has been studying philosophy for a good deal of time now, but this essay seemed to be reaching and over analyzing just to fill space. Of the entire essay I believe the last few pages were the most enlightening. “Art produces sensations never before produced,” This is a great line. Art is making visual the invisible, making audible the inaudible. Pulling from chaos a small portion of chaos to create a sensation. That is the talent of the artist.
Having said all of that I think the idea of chaos needs to be addressed. Chaos is an idea of opinion, and something that I do not believe exists. As an artist I seek to represent the magnificence expressed in nature around me. I do not feel I am plucking out a slice of chaos to represent as it has not been represented before. I aim to take the awe I feel and translate it into art. That awe I feel does not come from chaos it comes a divinely engineered environment.
1. Does combining Art and Philosophy over complicate art?
2. Should all art create a sensation?
3. Why are artists credited with being able to pull basically comprehensible ideas and images out of chaos? Is that not what our eyes do anyways everyday?