What does it mean to produce environmentally engaged artwork? And further, what does it mean to produce good environmentally engaged artwork? These questions are at the forefront of my mind this evening, after spending the day visiting four exhibitions at various venues in Newcastle as part of the AV festival.
For me, there are two primary considerations behind any artistic work: the concept and the aesthetic. By this I mean the ideas behind the work, the inspiration, the use, purpose and function; and how 'good' it is, how interesting, engaging, pretty or attention-grabbing. For some artists, the concept is of primary importance - I would place John Cage's indeterminate works in this category, whereby the aesthetic is not pre-determined. For others, the aesthetic is of paramount importance.
Artwork that really appeals to me strikes some kind of balance between the two. For me, 'good' art needs to be both conceptually interesting and aesthetically appealing. And what frustrates me most is an artist taking an interesting concept with lots of potential, and realising it in a way that is disappointing, boring, or just plain bad.
There is an extra consideration in artwork that attempts, or claims, to be environmentally engaged: ethics. To what extent should environmentally engaged artwork attempt to be ecological, to engage with the environment in a way that deepens our connections with the world around us, that encourages us to relate to our environment in a more ecological way? For me, working ecologically is extremely important, and I think that doing so requires a deep engagement with the environment. It's important to go below the surface, to stop seeing the environment as something we exist on, and instead feel the environment as something that we are in and that is in us, that we are an integral part of: we exist with the environment. In engaging in this way, our experience goes beyond the superficial, giving rise to the potential for our artwork to go beyond the superficial, to engage and be engaging: to be good.
For environmentally engaged artwork, then, the concept and the aesthetic aren't enough; without that engagement, the result will always be superficial, and thus uninspiring, unimpressive - a bit disappointing and boring. And the proof's in the pudding - watching people wander into the exhibitions, look around, slightly bemused, then wander away again, probably never to give the exhibition a second thought, told me all I needed to know.
For me, there are two primary considerations behind any artistic work: the concept and the aesthetic. By this I mean the ideas behind the work, the inspiration, the use, purpose and function; and how 'good' it is, how interesting, engaging, pretty or attention-grabbing. For some artists, the concept is of primary importance - I would place John Cage's indeterminate works in this category, whereby the aesthetic is not pre-determined. For others, the aesthetic is of paramount importance.
Artwork that really appeals to me strikes some kind of balance between the two. For me, 'good' art needs to be both conceptually interesting and aesthetically appealing. And what frustrates me most is an artist taking an interesting concept with lots of potential, and realising it in a way that is disappointing, boring, or just plain bad.
There is an extra consideration in artwork that attempts, or claims, to be environmentally engaged: ethics. To what extent should environmentally engaged artwork attempt to be ecological, to engage with the environment in a way that deepens our connections with the world around us, that encourages us to relate to our environment in a more ecological way? For me, working ecologically is extremely important, and I think that doing so requires a deep engagement with the environment. It's important to go below the surface, to stop seeing the environment as something we exist on, and instead feel the environment as something that we are in and that is in us, that we are an integral part of: we exist with the environment. In engaging in this way, our experience goes beyond the superficial, giving rise to the potential for our artwork to go beyond the superficial, to engage and be engaging: to be good.
For environmentally engaged artwork, then, the concept and the aesthetic aren't enough; without that engagement, the result will always be superficial, and thus uninspiring, unimpressive - a bit disappointing and boring. And the proof's in the pudding - watching people wander into the exhibitions, look around, slightly bemused, then wander away again, probably never to give the exhibition a second thought, told me all I needed to know.
RSS Feed
