Chalk and cheese. Apples and oranges. Cats and dogs. Einstein and Monroe. Interprets and challenges. These are all examples of terms that cannot be used to describe the other. Which is why the suggestion that artworks interpret the ideas and values of the world does not fairly credit the power of an artwork. Artists may interpret the values that were seen within their society, they do so through their work and consequently it is believed that the artwork simply speaks for the thoughts of the world. Yet art continues to be viewed as a controversial and provocative subject, which cannot merely be contained by the expression 'interprets'.
To challenge is to defy and argue against, this is a more suitable way of describing the purpose of an artwork. Further more, it is not the artwork in itself that pushes the boundaries of confinements, but the artists that seeks to confront and incite reaction in their audience and world.
Although it is necessary that artists understand the ideas and values of the world, it does not mean that they stop at a point, which agrees with the manner that issues are being dealt with. This leads to the input of opinion of the artist, which inevitably affects the resulting artwork they create.
Marcel Duchamp's, 'Fountain' and Rachel Whiteread's, 'House' are two artworks which were produced with strong background obtained by the artist's personal experiences and attitudes. However, 'Kritios Boy' is a sculpture that cannot be confidently credited to anyone and therefore, we cannot construe a connection between the piece and the artist but we can still draw from the values of ancient Greece to express the concerns this artwork raises and confronts.
Placing a urinal in the middle of an art exhibition infuriated many members of the art world and...