John Armleder Response

1. What does the artist think about the relationship between artist and audience?

I feel like he is saying that the relationship between artist and audience is very important but it's not a relationship on which he bases his art. He seems to create work without really caring how his audience might interpret or understand it because he himself doesn't really have a clear understanding or opinion of what he does. But later in the article he talks about works where he lets people add on what they think belongs and even talks about one private collector who owns a piece of his that added onto it and he doesn't even know what has been done to it. I feel like in that instance the audience is what makes the art, the artist is just a tool. He seems to create art and then just let the audience think of it what they will, just as long as they think at least a little bit.

4. What do you think of the quote: "Most important, I've never believed that what I think about my own
work has anything to do with the work itself"?

I think his thoughts about his work would have to have an impact on the work because if he didn't like something he wouldn't create it. I mean, I kind of feel like everything that has to do with an artist impacts the kind of work they make. Regardless of how his thoughts about his work change overtime, they still matter and they still have an impact. I think he's just trying to make himself sound like a super complex artist. He creates what he likes. He even says it somewhere in the article that he decided it was okay to make what he likes. Isn't what you like part of what you think about something? But as I went on reading the article I'm being to question whether or not this man  does have any sort of opinion of his "art" because he just lets people add onto it or takes art from other artists. I wouldn't even necessarily call it appropriating others work because he's not even really creating anything new.

5. Do you agree with him about a generic or neutral work of art? Explain
I don't agree with him that generic art wouldn't exist if it was generic. Art is art no matter what label is attached to it as long as some sort of idea comes across to the audience. Generic art, in my opinion, is just a form of art that is somewhat elementary that all audiences would be able to understand and take something away from it because it is so common that it's universally understood. I think generic art exists so that the average person has some sort of art to appreciate. Sure it won't stand out, but it still matters. Plus, his work in the 80s was considered generic... how can he just dis art like that when he made art like that himself? I do agree with him that making generic art is very restricting. If an artist is trying to make a certain type of art there are a lot of limitations that the artist would need to follow that may inhibit their full potential. But at the same time, it's impossible to make art without being influenced somewhere along the lines. I mean, at this point in time everything has pretty much already been thought of. It's just a matter of building onto what's already been done and doing it better. Again. I feel like he's trying to be super revolutionary and complex. He's trying to disconnect himself from the basic foundation where all artists start. He says that artwork that is essentially a portrait of him would be very boring. I think I disagree with that. To him the art may be boring because he already knows things about himself but the audience might find that type of art very engaging. Art speaks a lot about someone. That's not boring.

8. What does he mean by "pseudointelligent idea"? What do you think about
this way of making art?

This was slightly confusing for me. He says a pseudointelligent idea is "something that’s sort of trying and failing to be smart" but then later states that he hopes this idea will "trigger an original response more readily than work that proceeds from these very academic premises." I think he's saying that this art is attempting to be art but isn't actually. He hopes that since it's essentially wannabe art it'll evoke a response to real art someone else did...whaaatt?....From what I'm understanding, he's taking other artists works and pieces of trash essentially and putting them together and calling it art. Associating other artists work with disposable items that are essentially trash seems like a major dis to the artists he's using to me. And what does that say about him? If he needs to rely on other artists can he call himself an artist if he's not really producing anything? In the article he talks about taking "ready-made junk" and piling it up to bring "it to a much higher status than it had when it was functional." He goes on saying that he just asks people to add on what they think belongs in it

10. What does he say about "vagueness and precision"? Do you find that you
work in that manner as well?

He talks about how he used the same composition, essentially, in each of the rooms in one of his exhibits but they all produced completely different images. By using, for example, a light source in each of the rooms he creates a sense of déjà vu. But the viewer probably won't recognize each thing as a light source in the same spot because they are each so different from one another. The precision comes from the fact that each light source was picked specifically to look a certain way. I'm not entirely sure if I work in this manner... I probably don't. I kind of don't think much about my art; it kind of just happens. That may or may not be a good thing but I feel like when I plan out my artwork it's often more disastrous than something I kinda just went with after a had a vague idea of what I wanted to do at the start. I think it'd be interesting for me to start forcing myself to work more precisely and see if I can somehow be vague like he is.

11. As an artist do you believe in confusing or explaining things to an
audience? What's more exciting and why.

I think explaining things and being confusing are both exciting for different reasons. I believe you should be clear to an audience what you're trying to do to a certain extent. It's nice to be able to explain your ideas to people who have no idea what you're thinking. It's also nice to just be able to express yourself verbally sometimes instead of visually in some way. But if you paint the whole picture for the audience then there is nothing for the audience to look at besides some technical aspects of the painting but that is only interesting to a person for so long. There needs to be a slight element of confusion in art so that the viewer has something to think about and can engage in the art. It's exciting to confuse people because it's enjoyable to see peoples brains working hard to unravel your work. But when the work is so confusing that the audience doesn't know where to go, then that's just no good. As an audience, it's their job to do something thinking and come up with their own conclusions about the art. As an artist, it's our job to create a balance between confusion and clarity to create amazing and meaningful works of art.

12. Refer to the last page for this question. What do you think about Armleder's way, methodology, modus operandi of making art and the way he makes work vis a vis his audience. Do you agree, disagree, find it naive, interesting, condescending, irritating, arty, stupid, transparent, etc (what things do you find it to be)?

He seems to create art for his own sake and also so he can grow as an artist. While the art is displayed for an audience, they are merely a second thought to him. He doesn't feel every decision needs to have an explanation because if he can't figure it out, it's kind of irrelevant if the audience understands or not if they even notice something like that. He creates work for himself. Period. I find that somewhat inspiring and stupid. He must have gotten lucky to have become a successful artist because most of the time people make art for themselves, it is basically seen as crap to the public. Just because you make art for yourself, and it's fantastic to you, doesn't mean anyone else really thinks so. But it's also inspiring in the sense that he is so set on making work that he seems to care less about anyone's opinions but his own. He just wants to grow and learn and become better; the success just seems secondary. Sure, he could only be saying that after the fact but the fact that he has that firm stance on making art for himself is just amazing. Of course I'm in the art field for myself. If I wasn't interested in a career that I was doing strictly for me I would have picked something where I can definitely make some money. But while I've been creating art this year, it hasn't always been for myself. It's been to fulfill an assignment. Yes, I've tried challenging myself and picking subjects I'm interested in but I don't know if I'd necessarily create art that fits all the assignments I've had. These assignments have definitely made me grow as an artist and look at things a different way, but it's not because I was doing it all for me like Armleder was. His art may not be so inspiring to me, but his words definitely are.