An Old | Undead Question
Thursday, February12th, 2009
I was having dinner last night with two friends and the same question that has followed me through graduate school popped up again to say hello. I thought I’d take a second to stick my tongue out.
The question is age old… if you count the last 30 years as an age…
Does visual art have to be visually compelling?*
With the risk of being rude, here is the answer that I did not give last night as I was downing my gin and tonic: No. Personally and professionally speaking, I do not feel for a piece of art to be worthy of my attention that it has to be visually compelling. I would go so far to say that I am utterly fascinated and refreshed by visual artists who are able to make aesthetic decisions that lead to work that isn’t visually thrilling.
I’m compelled by images constantly and it is not a pleasant experience.
Visual culture in the West is characterized by a constant and unending stream of images that are… visually compelling. Some people call them advertisements and they are always there, captivating us to buy/feel/do something. It is all really quite numbing and feel like I’m building up an immunity to this type of image-function.
After all, there is something inexplicably gracious about an image that can function in ways other than… aesthetically compelling.
*I’m going to go ahead and assume the unsaid/uncouth/unfashionable connection between saying that something visually compelling is also saying it is formally compelling.