Heather Hewko

What I thought was interesting or just kind of jumped out to me from the reading (Debated Territory) was the relationship between the audience and the art. What weight does the interaction give to the art? Even if opposed or in favor of the art the audience is a crucial impact on the overall experience. The audience takes their own perspective and will impose a projection of their experience to what the art is speaking to them. So the interaction is a give and take. The artist makes the food and the audience has to eat and digest it, and take with them what they will. Not everyone likes the same food. And that's that. Even with the artist as the experiencer, reporter, analyst, or activist each presents the opportunity for their work to be criticized and what one may feel towards the art, another will feel the opposite. So can one truly critque art and speak for an audience as a whole? From what I got from the reading, the answer would be: no. The view is different with each individual. Many can get similiar experiences, none can be exactly alike. Also, something I like was the concept of "what is 'good' art". If the artist's intention is make a positive enlighting experience, does this now make the art...good? Once the artist starts to only rate their art from the success they receive, and only cater to what the critics want or favor does that not make the art less impactful/honest