Suzanne Lacy

Ok. Wow. I'm a little lost as where to start. This may seem scattered. There are a few thoughts I continue to ponder over from this reading. First of all, I believe with so many new diverse forms of art (installations, performance art, guerrilla art, interactive art) intention of a piece should be a factor that never leaves a critique list. There may never be an answer for its intention but it should always be one of the first questions asked.

Secondly, these new forms of art or taking art out of traditional gallery spaces are not new concepts. They have been exercised for many years past. Graffiti is a great example of both categories. It hasn't been till recent that art critiques have acknowledged them. Suddenly the art form appeared out of nowhere but the truth is, it was there all the time. Passing you on the train. Staring you in the face in the bathroom. These two particular examples are exposed to tons of people a day. Yes, there will be times when its passed by (just like you can walk by any piece in the gallery) but, lets just say that in that bathroom that simple landscape drawing in sharpie above the towel dispenser made someone think about their childhood, humanity or simply brightened up their day, is that not as valid as a charcoal landscape in the MOCA?

Third, for me, the most exciting is exposing strangers to new ideas or possibilities. I try not to make my work about political or social themes (although they are present, just never the foundation) because I think once you have an agenda like that it becomes propaganda. I want to create stories any person can connect to because they are based on basic human needs. Its hard because politics and social issues do make up my experiences. Its double edged. Is it possible to have a pure reaction?

I think I've gone and made this about me. (this just has really been on my mind all summer) But again, art is a reflection of our thoughts on the world and what we have to say about it, not what critics have to in rebuttal of it.