Moldymagdalene - Boy

With the never ending debate over the significance of intention by the maker versus response from the media, it can be even more difficult to analyze the problematic nature of both. Whether an artist intends for there to be certain subject matter perceived in a specific way or not, they become somewhat responsible for the reception of their work by the public. Measuring the negative nature of this is not something objective, and with public analysis being so broad and unpredictable, it is almost impossible to foresee the problems that will come out of the art we make and display, let alone stop them from existing. I think artistic interpretation, whether from an uninvolved audience or fellow artists, is incredibly problematic, as it acts as a vulnerable and raw space for us to project ourselves onto the art we see. However, I think the creation of art is most commonly used as a way to self soothe, explain away the negatives we experience, act as exposure therapy and yes, even solve political and social problems we face as a larger community. I think one of the beautiful things about art is that it feeds its own production, and when we are unhappy with a work of art, we as artists can create in response to it, making a visual dialogue that serves the same purpose as verbal conflict and debate. Just as many other things exist, art is fed through the ideas of its creator, making the well-known “separation of art and artist” a difficult thing to tackle. When the artist exists as a problem within their specific environment, or thinks in a way that is problematic, their art will display that. To put the identity of controversial and troublesome onto the piece itself, makes for a literal and metaphorical yelling at the wall. This being said, I think creating a blame based narrative in a culture that does not allow for growth or apologeticness, makes it so that those who create what we consider problems are unable to be a part of the solution.

<3