Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7sm8u wrote

I felt that the original comment of this thread asked a genuine polite question and op replied in the typical artists manner. Not calling them out or anyone as a person who did something wrong but I just felt it had to be stated that there’s more to say about ones work. But I suppose it’s up to them and if that’s not what they want to do then fine sorry I said it’s a “cop out” if that’s so terribly controversial and offensive


Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7seos wrote

That’s what makes art interesting. If you wanna go paint a pretty sunrise with birds chirping because it’s pretty then that’s fine but I’m not gonna look at it or think about it for very long if it’s just surface value, Unless of course you have more to offer in the landscape.


Purposlessporpoise t1_iu789pa wrote

As a viewer, you assume everything you observe in the piece is intentional, for example, the woman licking the foot, the thorns, the berries, the woman’s expression, your choice of placement. Literally everything under the sun has a meaning that you chose. It’s just a matter of knowing why you chose that and you don’t always know and not everything has to have a solid tie in but all I’m saying is you know your art better than you’re leading on


Purposlessporpoise t1_iu77oou wrote

Art doesn’t always have to have a direct narrative or story behind it. You don’t have to know what it means before or while you’re making it. But once it’s said and done, especially for a piece like this with lots of implications and narrative tools, when someone asks you about it’s meaning, you better have something better than that ^