Our tutorial was cancelled this week so I have included my response to the questions here in my journal. The questions this week were focussed on the artists Destiny Deacon and Ricky Maynard.
1. Destiny Deacon’s work has been described as interpreting contemporary society through a political framework. Is it necessary for the viewer to be familiar with the political ideas she is referencing in order to appreciate the work?
I don’t think that you need to know the political ideas behind the images in order to appreciate them on an aesthetic basis. Many of the images seem to be accompanied by a title, which offers enough information for the viewer to work out some kind of story. Although, I do think that to truly understand the message the artist is trying communicate, it would help if the viewers did know the story behind it. That way the audience would be less likely to misinterpret the artworks meaning.
2. The image in Art and Soul of Ricky Maynard with his back to the camera, standing in the water looking out to sea, is presented in the context of the Tasmanian genocide which adds a powerful emotional context to the photograph. Is the photo still powerful if the viewer doesn’t know the context?
Personally I think that yes, the image is still powerful even if the viewer doesn’t know the context. Through the use of black and white photography a powerful method by itself; a feeling of loss and sadness is evoked. Just by looking at this photograph without any prior knowledge of its meaning, you feel a sense of longing and being all alone due to the man having his back turned to the camera and positioned in a large body of still water looking out over the vast sea.
'Broken Heart' by Ricky Maynard, 1953