Reading Butler’s “Interlude 1,” made me realize that we often create connections and patterns in our minds when we look at art. It’s never just about looking at art and observing what we like and dislike about it.
As mentioned by others, at museums and exhibitions when we’re moved by a piece, it’s usually because we connect it to an experience or memory that means something to us.
Even if the art’s story isn’t clearly mentioned in words, we have the ability to weave a story to our own liking. This is why I assume artists always say their art is up for interpretation.
This is similar to the discussion about “art in Japan” because it describes what many people experience in Japan, whether it’s their interactions, emotions, perspectives, etc.
But the people that are introduced in this class are not really art creators, and I thought they’re great art scavengers, in a good way.
And I thought that's another type or a form of an artist. And in this situation, I thought Aki Nagasaka wanted to go to Europe and find the stories behind that specific lion.Because she was trying to find stories. And looking for a good art piece. And find a way to tell the story to other people.
This story had me the idea that artists could be scavengers and not only creators.
JAMES: How do other people feel about this idea? Artists as scavenger, or any other reactions to Aki?
SAYUKI: If artists are scavengers, I wonder what makes artwork original. When I draw my own illustrations, I often feel like I am just making an inferior imitation of my favourite work. In addition, if scavengers have originality doesn’t that mean Artificial Intelligence also has originality?