Validity
Today was a good year for an art show. I'm quite happy with how this culture event proceeded, as it represented the culmination of a year's work for "the three amigos", D. Constantino Salazar, Philipo Woollamm, and Ivan Langosiris (names may not be spelt precisely as shown). Being the fabricators that they are, the art-objects these friends produced were up to a high standard of craftsmanship, and as such it follows that many of the conversations catalyzed at their feet were equally as interesting as the work was to look at. Ginette Legarie had encouraging words to speak concerning the futures of these creators, and of the others who will be populating upcoming shows. George Boileau and a student of his allowed me in on an exchange where the dynamic of a proposed public artwork was considered. I was able to touch base with some fellow graduates with whom i had drifted out of contact since the year previous, and engage in a truly enriching discussion with Prof. of woodshop Stan Krzyzanowski concerning validity.
Here's the Play by Play:
- Standing in front of Langohr's automated headbanging, i flipped the switch that turns it off.
- Will (fellow grad) turns to me and says "you can't do that".
- I argued that whatever interaction i have with the artwork is valid, and i run with it, contributing a number of other ways that could be considered "valid".
- Stan challenges me by asking what limit i would put on validity, after having used the word so much.
- After some thought i replied that any action around which a well constructed supporting argument can be built is valid.
- Stan accepts, though he adds that this is a kind of validation, and that there are many different flavours of validity besides.
- Will brings up fiscal success as a measure of validity.
- I ask where in these shifting sands can we locate a solid anchor point for a standard of excellence, or some means to measure the virtue of a creative endeavour.
- At length Stan replies that the most important function for art is inquiry. Work that one does in an effort to answer a question is the pulsing vitality of it all. If you're making something in a situation where you have all the answers, where is the room for personal growth?
Here's the Play by Play:
- Standing in front of Langohr's automated headbanging, i flipped the switch that turns it off.
- Will (fellow grad) turns to me and says "you can't do that".
- I argued that whatever interaction i have with the artwork is valid, and i run with it, contributing a number of other ways that could be considered "valid".
- Stan challenges me by asking what limit i would put on validity, after having used the word so much.
- After some thought i replied that any action around which a well constructed supporting argument can be built is valid.
- Stan accepts, though he adds that this is a kind of validation, and that there are many different flavours of validity besides.
- Will brings up fiscal success as a measure of validity.
- I ask where in these shifting sands can we locate a solid anchor point for a standard of excellence, or some means to measure the virtue of a creative endeavour.
- At length Stan replies that the most important function for art is inquiry. Work that one does in an effort to answer a question is the pulsing vitality of it all. If you're making something in a situation where you have all the answers, where is the room for personal growth?