The first thing to pop up in my head was a great, big "WHAT?!" when I read "We are approaching the dawn of a classless society, to which separation into rigid categories is absolutely irrelevant."
Sure, it is very interesting and true and worth thinking about that art and society can go hand in hand. And it is also true that in the days of the extreme class system, art was extremely categorized. Now it is not so much. But to say that society is also going to be classless is just false. If he had said that society is making it easier to cross class lines, while many certain classes are still rigidly stuck where they are, that would be more true of society and of art. Because while art is taking so many new forms (based on medium and/or concept), there are still paintings that are just paintings and people still have affection for the "original" types of art.
But getting to the point of the article: INTERMEDIA.
The way Higgins describes intermedia, it is basically a concept with the mediums forming around it. It is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary method to combine different subjects and see how they interact to result in a certain effect. Intermedia is constantly changing until the mediums match up to convey a conceptual idea. I think that Higgins' explanation makes a lot of sense and does a nice job of showing the difference between mixed media and intermedia, which I did not know before.
I do disagree that found objects are intermedia though. He believes this just because they don't conform to a pure medium. But even if the artist has a concept to go along with the object, I believe something more has to be done with it to make it intermedia and to strengthen the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment