Lynn Herchann’s article opens a new way of seeing the interaction between audience and art and art performer. It reminds me of an article—I forget about the name— that I have read written by psychologist William James, saying that thought is continuos within personal consciousness which transcends time and space. Therefore, conscious is something purely subjective, which is taken advantage by the artist in the creation, and after reading Herchann’s argument, also used by art itself during the performative presence. I guess some reason why courant de conscience becomes so popolar now. Those art is itself a conscious communication between artist and the viewer, maybe even between the art and the viewer. There is no right or wrong in these kind of art. The conscious becomes some medium that makes the art penetrate into people’s mind and subconscious. Usually viewers themselves become fellow travellers with conscious flowing together.
Those arts has no right or wrong. Corresponding to Lynn Herchann’s argument, “the viewer has no choice but to construct meanings on his or her own out of the interactions in consciousness between different elements; there are no given meaning”. Everything depends on viewer’s point of view and feeling. With different individuals, the perceptions diverse.
There is a film that I would relate to the above point of view— Paranoid Park. The director Gus Van Sant is doing so gorgeous in picturing a video art that communicates with audience in conscious level. Gus Van Sant does not want to reveal any sad reflection in society through a teenager’s accidental crime. I don’t even think the director expect the audience to involve in the depressed mood. There is no “what is what ” in his film, nor is there any determined or expected value. Paranoid Park is just a film that uses fancy art techniques of filming to tell a teenager’s story and tells some unknown truth. Any other meaning has to be constructed by the viewers themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment