So this group of ladies from my contemporary art class (this past summer) get together regularly to discuss the book "7 days in the art world" and other art events/ideas etc. Of course last night was another stimulating experience. We discussed chapter two, which is about the art critique. How is a professional artist suppposed to get this feed back, which is required to see ones own work with a more universal perspective? Is it the curator responsibility? Or perhaps the public must step up to the duty of giving the feedback required? Who is the final expert on what is 'good' art and what is not? Is there a difference between good art and marketable art, and is the marketability a requirement for the work to be successful?
We also talked about the Warhol exhibit that is at the CSU museum, which features his photographs as well as several of the flower prints in all their technicolor wonder. The Warhol Foundation has recently donated large collections to many university institutions around the country. The goal, I suppose is to encourage research into his life, his process etc. But how much research can be done by just looking at the images? Warhol was always with his camera, shooting his whole life, and to say what his thoughts were behind any individual image is merely conjecture. Some I am sure where very thought out composed pictures, while others may have just been taken spontaneously, just part of his daily routine.
So this is only a brief summary of our conversations, and thanks to all the great ideas, and blood to the brain! cheers,
