As
I begin my second year of my MFA, I am oddly reminded of my first year of
undergrad at Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle. I remember that year very
clearly. "This year is designed to demolish any previous conceptions you
have had about art." I was told. I was taught how to create sculptures out
of found objects, to incorporate my own body in my work, to think of the
negative space rather than the positive. It was all rather eye opening and
intriguing.
However,
one particular lecture I had I remember my professor showing slides of art
pieces of contemporary artists as we all shyly gave our opinions on them. For
the life of me I wish I could remember which pieces they were, or if I even
liked them, but there was one in particular where I remember my teacher telling
us students that the work was clearly to literal, and it should have been more
ambiguous.
I
am unsure if it was because of my naturally argumentative nature, or if I
really did see red flags of close-mindedness go up, but I began to disagree
with her, interrupting her lecture. "I'm not saying there is anything
wrong with ambiguous art, or art that doesn't clearly have any meaning, but
cant there be a time and place for art that does have meaning? I mean, the
problem with ambiguity is that it tends to be unrelatable for people who don't
have an invested interest in the arts. Whereas I find people outside of the art
world are more drawn to pieces that are more obvious. So what's wrong with
that?"
Years later, as I
continue to become engulfed by what is called the "art world" my soul
begins to fade more and more because my natural tendency to make art with a
narrative is being drowned with ambiguity. So I go back to my original naive
question: what is wrong with being literal in art? I am open for arguments, but
for now I am of the opinion that it is time for the art world to get over
itself. Let’s try looking at things with the childlike fascination like artists
used to.
