Response to Reading #1

This article mainly had me think about what "freedom" did to art and the artists. Since Dadaism declared that basically anything can be art, the meaning of art became a lot more ambiguous. As this article says, if one calls something an "art", it is art. Of course, there have been some positive side of this movement, where art wasn't so much about just aesthetic; it had to be conceptual. It is actually a quite pleasant experience to enjoy art in an unexpected ways.

Sadly, however, it seems like this "artistic freedom" made young artists lazy. They focus on the result, but not really on the process. Once they have a vision of something, how they approach it isn't very important. They spend more time sitting around thinking about their art, rather than physically practicing their skill and craftsmanship. Therefore, art became very self-centered and abstract where viewers have no room to enjoy art. 

As current art students, we do have to think about where art is going. Art is something that brings out viewers' emotion and have them look back on themselves. This connection or "linkage" between the artists and audiences must happen. And I believe a sophisticated art work comes from the artists' honest emotion, experienced skill, and thoughtful concept; it doesn't come for just being clever. When no experimental arts are shocking anymore, I think it's about time for us to go back to basic. We have to think about what the medium really does and we have to meditate through practicing the skill with patience. It's now our homework to find out how to make this "back to basic" idea contemporary.