There are several problems with intentionalism as a critical method. First it is difficult to find out what the intent of the photographer was. Some photographers are unavailable for comment about their images; others don't express their intents. Several photographers would rather not have to make images and criticize them. As Cindy Sherman has said, "I've only been interested in making the work and leaving the analysis to the critics." - Criticizing Photographs by Terry Barrett
In the beginning of the semester my photography professor stated that alot of times the interpretation of the artist is not a necessary or wanted thing, because we create art for the viewers...meaning the opinion of the viewers is priority over the creator.
That kind of made me frustrated because when I personally make an image or do some other form of art I do it because it means something to
me personally and I want to express that meaning to whoever wants to see it.
But on the other hand, according to Terry Barrett and outside of art being a personal thing, it is really to be created to be observed and chewed and digested and not to be held back by a selfish artist. If the intent of the artist was to restrict all interpretations to his own then how many people would view the work and have it mean something to them? Everyone has their own opinion, which is a good thing...because overall I guess when I create a work of art I want it to
mean something to those who view it, whether it be my interpretation according to me personally or a totally opposite view.
I'm not owned by the public, I just stimulate their thoughts.
This is an old post, so both comments and trackbacks are currently closed. If you wish to leave a response, please contact me.
hey i like your new layout
Wow! I quote from Cindy Sherman! She’s one of my favorite photographers Hmm, I haven’t thought about the audience of the art before.. It’s a difficult subject; I’ve just always thought it’s there for the viewers if they want to enjoy it or not. *meh.