How we talk about art.

The Aldrich is an interesting place. Rather than give facts and history to it's visitors it gives questions. In doing so it functions rather more like an art history class than a museum. Upon walking in to a docent guided tour you are asked "well what do you think"? or If you ask the guide "what does this mean I don't get it"? You will most likely be asked what You think it means. No this is not an attempt to drive you mad with a circuitous conversation. It is an attempt to make you think, and hopefully help you realize that art is what you make of it. The second an artist let's their work out into the world they open it up to every one else's perspective and there intent however interesting is not the only meaning a piece can have.

Personally I like stories, and a work of art that I may initially find dull or just not my style may gain something once I know the artists intent. This is more a credit to the idea that the final work of art however and that opens up a whole new category of questions. For instance, Which is more important the idea or the final work? Is the work still valid at all if the only thing carrying it is the idea or the process? What do other people see in it? Is every one as bored as me? Or is the work moving and enlightening for others?

On the other end of that a work of art I love can also be enhanced by it's back story. There are times though when knowing that back story first can stifle my imagination. I like the way art theory is going, it's less fact and more feeling. Rather than talking in a way that intimidates every one, artists and historians are speaking in a way that is much more interesting and open-ended.