Group One Overview

After reading the essays of the first group (“Against Interpretation, Challenging the literal, Chaos, and Interview with Agnes Martin”) they all have a common theme of concepts within art, and the interpretations of them. In “against Interpretation” The author argues that art is now over interpreted and form is lost, while “Challenging the literal” states that interpretation is impossible anyways because of a difference in personal associations. Part of the fun of conceptual art is digging into the head of the artist, and part of the fun I enjoy in making art is leaving clues for the viewer to follow. In the art world it is common knowledge that everyone interprets things differently. Not that I am in argument of these essays I have to say I agree with both of them and enjoyed the message each had to say, but both were like beating a dead horse (simile: like a metaphor but using the words like or as) compliments of challenging the literal. These essays both had a reasonably clear point and made them well. I can’t say the same for the Chaos essay. it rambled and rambled about topics that did not pertain to the subject at all, to the point that I don’t particularly want to speak about it, so moving on to the interview. Agnes martin challenges the first two essays with her idea of inspiration. If art is made with her ultimately pure form of inspiration it cannot be misinterpreted. That is if we as humans all have the same root emotions and the same signals for them. She claims that her art is so pure that she does not have a hand in it at all, but that inspiration tells her hand where to paint and what to paint. There are no ideas behind her work. So while it contradicts both essays it also reinforces “Against Interpretation.” She is bringing back pure form and color to her pieces. Maybe Agnes and the author of the first essay should have gotten together and had tea they would have hit it off.