Now in the exhibition there were pieces of blank canvas, which actually had substance, but it was blind to the human eye as I stated before. Lets say that this piece before you is actually my own invisible art, I am the artist of this artwork and I want you, the audience to try and imagine what art could be on that screen, So hold that knowledge close and I want to see what happens If I did this:
That right there is my intent for the art, Now for some of you, this might be completely unrelated to the perception or emotion you had in your minds before I introduced that intent, some of you may now be thinking that the intent and elaboration of my art in the bottom right corner is the true (i.e correct and genuine) meaning but for others you may not wish to accept it as there is nothing to question and nothing to confirm what you read with and this was the dilemma I fell into.
It was impossible for individuals to share the exact same perception or feel exactly the same way towards the art as they interpreted it differently. But as I explained and as you saw, guides and blurbs that I inevitable came across describing what the art was about and what the artist intended absolutely shattered that experience. Why? I had a personal conception that the intent of the artist objectified the meaning of their artwork and therefore if the observer knew that knowledge, the interpretation no longer becomes subjective and it no longer becomes unique.
But does it? I mean yes a counter argument to this is that there is a clear difference between invisible art and actual visual art in regards to the fact that you can observes the physical properties of one and the other you cannot. The main point being the fact that if you were given the artists intent for visual art you have something to question and debate as to whether or not you wish to accept it to be genuine. Whereas if you were given the intent of the artist for an invisible piece of art, you would be more inclined to accept it as you have nothing to question, nothing to perceive, nothing to feel towards and hence many automatically assume that this is definitively what the art means.
And this is what I personally believed would be a suitable response to this counter claim which is that the more information you have which explains the artwork the more objective it becomes (in regards to both perception and emotion) and the less you have on the art the more subjective it becomes (once again in regards to both perception and emotion). It is at this point where I want to introduce my personal perspective on the matter through an analogy that came to mind whilst in the exhibition.
The artist plants a seed of knowledge i.e their intent in the mind of the observer via their artwork. The observer can choose to accept their intent, which will allow this seed to grow and any perceptions/emotions will grow upon the acceptance of the intent. However if the observer chooses to ignore the intent, they no longer interpret or know the artwork in the manner the artists intended. They plant their own seed, they have their own interpretation and hence they feel/perceive in the manner in which they want.
I want to shortly discuss another way of knowing: Language as a lot of it was used to articulate the art that was blind to my sight perception. And language is The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
But in regards to the artists intent for invisible art or even art in general, is the affect on our perception and emotion lost in translation? I think this point is imperative as it has serious implications, why? Because the only way people ‘know’ the intent of the artist is through language. Once again, Language can also be subjective in that different people can interpret it in numerous ways. And my perspective on this was that the more artists attempted to explain their work, the more they objectified the artwork, and the more they influenced my perception and the way I felt.
From talking to an artist at the Haywad Gallery, Im going to give you another perspective on the matter, I was told by an artist at the gallery that the more artists explain their artwork the more it is lost in translation through the subjectivity of language and therefore the more the meaning is lost in interpretation, rendering the intent of the artist ineffective in challenging our perception and emotion. But I couldn’t help but still thinking that at the end of the day, our ways of knowing are still objectified to a certain degree.
So to conclude I believe personally that that art in itself is subjective, it is open to interpretation, it is open to perceptions and it is open to emotions. When individuals possess the intent of the artist, their perception and emotions towards their artwork can alter depending upon the degree to which they accept the intent to be ‘true’, this piece of knowledge for some, can take away the ability for people to question and engage with the art in front of them. wish to end with a news report on this exhibition to wrap things up, I thank you very much for your attention and wish you all enjoyed it thank you.