I'm going to muse on something here..... I think about Fantasy Art quite a bit. I ponder the way it is perceived by the Art World, and why it's usually regarded as low-brow, or even laughable. It seems that a common and possibly defining quality of FA is the presence of realistic elements within the work. Perhaps this is because in order for fantasy to be compelling it requires a model off of which to stray. A Rothko or Bauhaus-period Kandinsky wouldn't be categorized as FA. However is this a narrowminded viewpoint? Who's to say that a color field painting couldn't be representative of a fantastical world, where one is immersed in dense fogs of highly saturated color? So when we categorize certain works as "FA" are we are drawing boundaries on the realms of imagination? Seems rather oxymoronic. Perhaps because of the liabilities in the connotations of the term people keep a wide berth. But just what is fantasy? And isn't all art, after all, a window into a fantasy world and subjective reality?
No comments:
Post a Comment