In Response To:
Hi, Brian again! Well, I think postmodern products are still interpretable. Andy Wohal presents Monroe in
different colors in order to shatter people's false images of a star. But in terms of traditional aesthetics, it has
no meaning, no depth, no subject, no stroke for us to see his real talent in painting. To put it more clearly,
it is like a blank picture with outlined frame, all we need to do is to color it so that it becomes a color picture.
Who cannot do it?? Well, if it is for a psychoanalyst, s/he may interpret the mental activity of the client, which
is not in our discussion. But, that's another presentation of contemporary art, though I am not capable enough
make an imformative interpretaion, sorry! As for Diamond Dust Shoes, it is a work of art. At least, it is Andy
Wohal's art--he painted it. We cannot deny his talent in painting because he really can draw and use colors as
as his language of creation. Maybe we comment that he is nothing more than an ad designer. It lies in how
we define 畫家and 畫匠. Both, we are sure, are good at painting. But, when we call a painter as an artist, we
judge him by using our somewhat elitist perspective. Will you call the movie signborad a work of art?? If you
see the Van Gogh's reproducted big painting hung on the building at the 仁愛圓環, will you still call it a work
Well, I would say Andy Wohal's art is in a certain degree interpretable. At least, it is out of his hands.
There are many postmodern art full of meanings. The postmodern theatre is an example. Mud is a good
example, which I will introduce to you. David Mamet's plays are mostly postmodern, but they are still
interpretable in the power of language and tone. A critic writes a book about the language in his plays,
which change my opinion toward Mamet's plays.
So, I am still positive to the development of postmodern art since it is still developing.