What is conversational art?
Is the author talking about the conversation of art or the art of conversation?
Is all art conversational art?
Do we only have ‘conversations’ if it’s with another person?
What do conversations bring us?
While reading the text, I found myself asking these questions to myself. And when I would understand something I would answer my own questions and contemplate with myself.
Then I thought, I am having a dialogue with myself. A conversation with my own head.
Is this categorized as conversational art?
I used conversation as a way to understand, investigate and reflect.
Wasn’t this what the author talked about?
I even responded to myself in an internal dialogue.
When visiting an art gallery or museum, you don’t have to dialogue with someone to understand an art piece. The art piece speaks to you. Just by looking into it asking yourself questions, then looking more deeply and getting an answer, you just had a conversation with the artwork.
All art should be conversational. It should drive people to dialogue with one another or even with their own heads.
I do think ALL art IS conversational: every artwork brings questions, remarks, and messages to its viewer (even if it wasn’t intentional by the artist). Yet each person will have their own.
Thus, this allows different interpretations and opens up room for conversations between different people to investigate, understand and reflect.
You can also do all of these things with a dog, which doesn’t happen with verbal dialogue.
You don’t need an actual dialogue with another person. Conversation isn’t just limited to talking.