I don’t know how much I believe in the statement in the book about Art Historical Context and how “if your not well informed about the history of art, past and recent,you are at a disadvantage…” I truthfully don’t have much of an art history knowledge except certain artists that I particularly enjoy. I don’t feel this sets me back, I feel it gives me more freedom. I don’t feel constrained by whats come before, only inspired by the new artists I’m opened up to. I think the example of George Washington Carver shows that historical context is only important when it relates to current context. I don’t feel the recreating artist is recreating the scene to poke fun at the original artist,nor does he care about the historical context of the original painting. he’s trying to prove a point which he does threw comparison. Is this really historical context? I think this is more cultural context.
This further draws the question is historical context only important when it’s their to prove a point? It feels to me that if this is the case art that draws on historical context must only be relevant as long as the point it argues is. It feels to me that art drawn from this concept become footnotes in the art world, but becomes necessary in the anthropology.
I have no questions on any other types of context though. It is typically difficult to understand many artists meanings without context, and the evolution of art would be nowhere without it.