Quote:
Originally Posted by JCF
Why so different ?
Those discarded shoes could have been worn by some bum - maybe a bum that was once somebody. Who maybe was a homeless Vietnam Vet. Or maybe someone who once had a good, "normal , unspectacular" life that went all to hell.
Maybe nothing so dramatic - just an old pair of shoes worn out from many a fun game of basketball.
I am reminded of Pig Pen talking about dust....
Charles Schultz was also a Vet - WWII, heavy combat and haunted by it.
...
|
I wonder about the need to consider the artist's background.
Shouldn't an image (or whatever) stand on its own? I think of course that you should include an artist's previous work, and that of their peers, so as to view each work as a phrase in an ongoing conversation or progression. But where does "background" become "branding"?. Millions were affected by Schultz's work without thinking of WW2, no matter how much it shaped him.
Does it matter if the source material was those years in the orphanage, flashbacks from wars' battles, the first sunrise after your daughter's birth or the stars you saw hitting your head on the porcelain during last night's blackout?
mike (likes mid 20th abstract art that makes him laugh for some reason, like agnes dewitt)