newmare wrote:

Whoa, there. I'm an asshole because I happened to make art for the art's sake and -gasp- there's not always some deeper meaning or thought process behind it? Thanks for the memo. =P Some people like be told exactly what they want to hear, and aren't satisfied with, "this horse was black because I felt like it. She's also trotting and looking flirty because I felt like that too." No, they'd rather an essay, and I'd rather get a good grade. "Insert profound after thought explanation on my could-have-been-thought-process." That sounds about right. As for it being understood: I think the work should speak for itself, and personally I would rather hear the raw interpretations of others prior to tainting it with my own intent.
My teacher for my first college ceramics class was like that. Actual conversation...

Teacher-Oh why did you create this?
Me-Because I like the look of it, and I wanted to.
Teacher-But whats the FEELING behind it?
Me-Um, I like, so I suppose like would be the feeling.
Teacher-No no no. In order for it to actually BEEEEE something there has to be FEELING behind it.

God that class sucked.


I think I would have hacked up a hairball on that instructor. We have a student in our department that is like that .......he drives me freaking insane!!! (he also never gets anything done because he's too busy conceptualizing it)

"Oh, we are but soft and squishy bags of mortality rolling in a bin of sharp circumstance, leaking life until we collapse, flaccid, into our own despair." --"Fool" by Christopher Moore