After staring at the wrong exhibition for half an hour, I finally realized where I was supposed to be. At first, I didn't exactly know what to make of the art piece because I could only see a little of the piece at one time. The longer I spent in the room, however, the more it intrigued me. I don't pretend to be a huge fan of modern art. In fact, I often get frustrated by its meaning. I don't pretend to know the meaning intended in Bravo's piece. All I know is that it intrigued me by the way the shapes of each skyline were not stagnant but seemed to flow and move in the wind. This illusion was most likely reinforced by the constant hum of the projector in back corner of the room.
After exiting the exhibition, I took time to read the panel outside the room thoroughly. I had only scanned it the first time to realize that the exhibition was in the room. Obviously, after reading it, I had to go back to see if I could make out any of the words in the piece. While I failed to do so I still couldn't help but ponder the meaning of the piece's title, "Landscapes of Belief." I'm confident that the full message of the piece alluded me, since I have not read Invisible Cities. However, as I pondered the ever shifting and changing scenes made of individual words. I began to think about how the words each represent ideas and how each individual idea contributes to forming the world around one. These beliefs and attitudes differ around the world, much like the architecture varies from city to city. Even within the city there are various beliefs and attitudes held to be true, much like no two buildings are alike, so these varied ideas and beliefs differ from each person.
Monika Bravo would not have been able to come up with this idea if she had not first read Invisible Cities. And then to make it aesthetically intriguing, she decided to a light projector on three panes of glass, which diffracted the light in the way she wanted. In short, she either had a lot of trial and error, or else had studied quite a bit (and probably still some trial and error too.) After all that is said and done, it was a very intriguing and unique experience for me.
I went to the wrong exhibit first too :) But it was happy accident because it was a really great exhibit.
ReplyDeleteI liked what you said about the piece being intriguing. I wrote a little bit about that in my own post. I feel like the artist may have really wanted people to sit and think about her piece so she designed it in a way that made it something you wouldn't get bored of too quickly. And it wouldn't be intriguing if it wasn't creative.
Now I don't want to sound rude or anything, but I think you limit yourself when you say, "I'm confident that the full message of the piece alluded me, since I have not read Invisible Cities." I'm not sure much of anybody has ever read the book, and I think Bravo is aware of that. I doubt she created the piece with the intention of it only being understandable by people who read the book, and I think you would have gotten more out of the piece by having more confidence in your ability to interpret the meaning of artwork.
ReplyDeleteI loved the honesty of your analysis man!! To be honest, I think your thoughts on how things are different all over the world was cool, and that is actually a good reason as to why she had the piece move and change.
ReplyDelete