The class tutorial exercise this week focused on the context of Indigenous-related artwork - Does the viewer need to know what political ideas are referenced in the work to be able to appreciate it?

I find myself asking this question about a lot of artwork, and that a lot of viewers, artists, and students answer with "The aesthetic gaze is just as important as the conceptual gaze!" This is something that I tend to have a hard time with - not all art is attractive. Actually, a significant amount of art is generally UNattractive, or even just uninteresting, unappealing. So, say you've got some unpleasant looking art that you don't understand the referent for - can you still appreciate it? Does appreciation only come from some sort of attraction or connection with the work?

The particular artists that this exercise looks at are Destiny Deacon and Ricky Maynard.

With Deacon's work, I don't believe that the viewer needs to know the specific political ideas to understand it (I find that these are implied by the directness of what's actually happening in the image), but that the viewer does need to know this information to fully appreciate it the way the artist probably intended the work to be seen (this is, obviously, an assumption).

When it comes to the photograph of Ricky Maynard in the ocean, I actually find my answer to be a little different - I think any image that projects a feeling of longing, searching, or loss is going to be powerful to viewers. It's something that is intimate; something that many, if not all, of us have experienced in one way or another. Knowing the context of work would bring the meaning to another level, of course, but the feeling is conveyed regardless.