In my graduation thesis, I intend to question the meaning of the medium of the
painting, because this is something that often haunts me during my creative process.
Signs can not be seen without first being channeled in a particular medium, such as
speech, drawing, writing, etc.
The human perception of the world is constantly changing, just as the world
itself is. In this dialectical dynamic, which is not always clearly intelligible, one of the
largest producers of the new and agitators of the old is technological advancement. It constantly offers us new tools and methods of watching and reproducing the world. So it seems that nowadays it is inappropriate to look at paintings through parameters as they were, for example, during the Renaissance, when painting blossomed. The technical apparatus, with which we absorb and store reality, was completely different at that time, just like the tasks and even the essence of the painting itself were. Painting must always strive towards communicating with the viewer. Even if its message is not completely clear tothe viewer, he/she can still process it a sensory or emotional manner. Communication and the building of meaning are crucial in art.
In what manner should a painting »speak«, so that the author's message is clear
enough? The author's work of art can never be purely visual, even if it offers aesthetic
pleasure. Do the chosen media of the artwork affect only their visual aspect?
|
