It was really interesting to see how people interpret and read your work blind, when they have nothing else to influence or inform the work other than itself. I guess in a way it is the ultimate test of how well the work communicates the feeling or intention it was supposed to. If it can be successfully read outside of any context then it is perhaps successful.
However, interpretations and readings of work are inherently totally subjective and very easily influenced by other things, especially the context.
From what people have written, it appears that at least something of my intention has been communicated. Especially the top group, with the words I have highlighted (sombre tone, thoughtful, ...the world in shape, process of the mind etc) and with both groups writing 'science', I think it's fair to say that they are in some way effective. I believe that maybe with the added context of Jarry, perhaps his name next to the work, or a little description of pataphysics maybe, would have emphasised this reading and the audience would be then able to make the connection between the man and the portrait; or at least the science and the portrait.
The ambiguity is clear from the question 'what are the shapes representing?', and there's something about that I like. Not only is pataphysics esoteric, but also I don't think the work would be interesting or effective if it perfectly explained the science. Illustration is not meant to spoon feed it's audience, it instead should hint at, evoke, suggest, deconstruct, make sense of etc concepts and ideas and meanings, provoking the audience to then research more after their curiosity has been sparked by the work.
No comments:
Post a Comment