|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
should
art be enjoyable?
What is the purpose of art today—to provoke, to
inspire, to please?
“My work's really about pleasure. It’s not always pleasurable
to make,” says artist Jessica Stockholder, “In order
to understand how people are socially controlled, for better or
worse, I think you have to pay attention to what gives you pleasure
and how pleasure matters. This work for me certainly functions
that way. It’s about making sense of discomfort, dissonance,
and struggle in relationship to pleasure.”
The artist Mike Kelley says about his work, “It’s a black humor, it’s
a mean humor—so it’s a critical joy. You know, it’s
negative joy. (LAUGHS) But that’s art I think—for me
at least...I think the social function of art is that kind of negative
aesthetic, otherwise there’s no social function for it. You
don’t need art then. Television can do the
same thing.”
Is there a difference between art and entertainment? Is
art worthwhile if it doesn't bring pleasure? Must the artist enjoy
making a work for it to bring joy to others? If art is a kind of “negative
joy,” as Kelley asserts, what is it's social function?
Should art
be enjoyable? SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
|
|
