This week, my class and I went to view the "Survivance and Sovereignty on Turtle Island: Engaging with Contemporary Native American Art" at the Kupferberg Holocaust Center at Queensborough Community College. We viewed works of art created by the descendants of the first people to live in the lands we call the United States of America. We've also been reading Joy Harjo's collection of poems, Conflict Resolution for Holy Beings and sharing our interpretations and responses to her works. She writes, "You cannot legislate music to lockstep nor can you legislate the spirit of the music to stop at political boundaries— / —Or poetry, or art, or anything that is of value or matters in this world, and the next worlds." So what are the boundaries between art, politics, commerce, and spirit? Harjo, at least, seems to be saying that they are not subject to the rules of law.
This brings to mind several questions: What's more important: the artist's intention for creating a work of art, or the individual's experience of viewing it? Or what about the curator, the person who chose the works to display and arranges them in the space? Or is it the space itself? Or what about the period of time in which the work was created or the political climate at that time? Does it matter if the subject of the work of art is the same gender or identity as the person who created it? Share your thoughts about the relationship between art and audience in the comments section below.
Comments
|
About this blogA blog is an online conversation. This one is for students of writing and is an extension of our face-to-face classroom. Here is where we can continue a discussion started in class, ask questions, and test new ideas. Archives
March 2020
Categories |