New to this so bear with me!
Okay so I had yet another frustrating debate (drunken) with a friend about the importance of contemporary visual art. I was going around in circles and found myself just getting worked up and repeating myself (the latter more so from alcohol) but still I really struggled with getting my point across.
What I was trying to say is that I think what signifies contemporary art is engagement without a selling motive. I guess I'm not referring to the commercial end more so public collections -IMMA, National Gallery....funded organisations/galleries Temple Bar Gallery, Project Arts Centre, The Lab.....
But I now wonder is that enough?One could simply observe nature to experience pure engagement. Also this justification is too dependent on engaging in art not being consumerist. What art isn't doesn't define what it is.
You could say visual art articulates ideas and theories derived from scientific, philosophical or empirical research that has been visually realised by a fellow human.This can bring an extremely unique experience no matter what the medium and where the ideas have come from. It only works if the viewer is willing to stay with a piece to allow his/her own interpretations collaborate with the work and allow what is presented in front of/around him/her conceptually unravel.
Do people do this? I do, but can find it challenging or I'm not always in the mood....
I guess I'm curious to hear how people feel about visual art. I have a degree in visual art practice and yonks of experience working for galleries.I'm also about to start an MA in art theory. Over the years I still haven't got over the fact that it is not that popular a medium and I guess I get disheartened!
I find the art world extremely pretentious sometimes but I also really enjoy conceptual art or 'challenging' art.
Let me know you thoughts!