Post #296317 by little lost tiki on Mon, Apr 2, 2007 9:43 AM

So....what Todd Schorr is saying is that an artist doesn't have to be well-read and literate in history and myth and literature,because the viewer ain't never gonna "get it" on that level...Is that what I'm hearing? True, the viewer always creates their own narrative,but the artist should take that and his knowledge and make a painting that appeals to both aspects of them... I think too many artists use mystery and cryptic symbols to confuse the narrative of a painting,because they themselves don't often know what they paint,only what appeals to them and is "cool".Art should be able to be digested by the masses,but should also have some solid reference for the continuation of an intelligent artistic interpretation....its place in Art History...Mystery is good,but you've been failing to tell us the REAL STORY behind this masterwork....Why are you all "Bush Administration" with the scoop?
Sorry...I felt like a Monday Morning rant...Any thoughts? :)