After watching the material provided I have to say I wasn't moved or effected by Rushas work. I found it rather monotonous and not engaging. The images didn't have depth are were lacking interoperation they were more a documentation of the subject for another purpose such as document gathering rather than artistic. But whilst looking at the images in this way ( documenting) and listening to the information provided, I couldn't help look for a meaning within the images. I was looking at the images in depth and allowing my own creative mind to bring the images to life. Creating a narrative for the images, whilst creating this narrative I began to question the intent of the images further. They were allowing subjective interoperation, so should I show see them as art ? Whilst looking at the outcome of the images ( book) we can see that Ruscha was giving the images some sort of importance by displaying them in this way. The permeant structure of the book works well in relating to the permeant garage fixtures he was looking at. The images became more a diary of interest than a document without meaning. Having his images following this idea of the diary which in itself is very personal and interpretive the images seem to gain more of a significance and a place within the artistic community.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!