Intermedial Art

Is non-intermedial work truly as worthless or unimportant as Higgins seems to claim it is? Is intermedial art truly more insightful than “normal” art?

It seems like this is a question that’s difficult to answer without stepping on certain people’s toes. While it’s clear what Higgins’ answer is to this question, is he necessarily correct?

I do believe that it is true that multimedia (or “intermedial” ) art can sometimes be more thought provoking and insightful than work produced in a traditional manner, I feel as though it is somewhat closed minded to claim that traditional mediums have no place in the future of art. Look at, for example, Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary.” This painting, which incorporated pornographic pictures and was painted, in part, with elephant dung, created considerable uproar when it was first shown. It made people question the artist’s intent (was he, perhaps, trying to attack Christianity?), or was he commenting on art itself? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the fact that it did provoke such questions and sparked much debate.

On the other hand, a good example of an intermedial piece that also created somewhat of an uproar was Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” in which she sat, passively on a stage and allowed audience members to cut off pieces of her clothing. This made people ask themselves, what is it about our culture (or perhaps was it Asian culture?) that made women so passive? Or were women just naturally passive? Was Ono attempting to make another statement? Again, many deep questions were raised.

It’s clear, in my mind, that “normal” art is not extinct or less valuable than intermedial art. Any and all art can have large impacts… the medium matters very little.