the viewer

[j.]

who/what is the viewer to you? is he/she relevant? or is it between you and your medium and the exposure is only relevant to your soul's journey, thus employing the viewer to play the role of the benefactor or employer. . . solely there for monetary purposes?

[mofarik]

I think it's pretty subjective to whichever aspect you wish to take your artwork path to. But i think, on an empty canvas, before you lay down that medium on to it. It's mainly passion that drives you to forth. Do it cos you enjoy it then it's purposes and all that comes with it will fall into place nicely. i may be wrong but like i said art is so subjective, that's why we all down here love it :)

Farik
ShrtZee Peeps

[j.]

exactly what i think! art is like eating, breathing, making love, shedding skin, its a necessity. i have to create in order to live. i have no choice. if there is a viewer, or an audience, then i am delighted. if they so happen to understand the purpose for my living and breathing, that's freaking fantastic! however, ultimately, i don't truly care what anyone has to say about what i create, because it is more than enough for me just to be able to do so! thanks for your input! you have assisted in resolving an terribly intellectual conversation between an urbn gypsy artist and her 90 degree, economist cousin regarding the viewer!

[MATTHEW ROSE]

i mostly make things so i can look at them. i've found out over the years that other people like to look at them, too. sometimes people buy them. it's all part of the story. don't confuse me with warhol, though.

[Andrew Binder]

"Art is a conversation. If there is no viewer, or the viewer isn't relevant, then I'm talking to myself."

Well....at first i AM talking to myself...until someone (the viewer) decides that they want to "listen" or "join" into the conversation. When I start an image I'm not all that and don't want to be too conscious of the viewer because I am interested in expressing what is in my heart or what I wish to convey. If someone enjoys the result of that...then all the better!

[Jeff K.]

I don't think too much about the viewer unless there's a specific point that I want to get across in the particular image that I'm working on. If it's an emotional piece, I don't think of the viewer at all, (let the viewer play catch-up) but if it's a political piece, I'll take greater care to have my image interpreted in a certain way. But I also believe the old saying that art isn't about what the artist wants you to see, but rather, what you see (as a viewer) in a piece of art. I've had work that I thought for sure could only be interpreted in a certain way, only to have someone tell me their thoughts on the piece and have a totally different interpretation than what I expected. After the artist sets a work upon the world, it becomes a piece unto itself and it's how a person perceives it as to whether it has value to them. At that point, there's no conversation between the artist and the viewer at all. It's between the piece and the viewer.