/fa/ - Fashion

>>11311604
You're inspired by their process. That doesn't mean reception itself is the process that leads to a conclusion - assuming the conclusion is an artwork, "process leading to a conclusion" describes artmaking, not inspiration. If your work is heavily citational, than it could be argued 'inspiration' is itself your process of artmaking, but a more accurate word would be reference or citation.

>Reception is a broad term
Yes, it is. Critical reception isn't.

>Why is the canon unimportant?
Stop truncating my points, you're changing their meaning entirely.

The [artist's place in] the canon is unimportant [when talking inspiration], because it is disconnected from their process (artmaking, production, m.o. etc), and inspiration in process is the only thing that will productively inform your own artmaking.

That's not to say sensitivity to a critical reception can't be a part of the process. I posted Klein's Yves Peintures, an example that is tied essentially to its reception and context. If you're not familiar, it was a catalogue of an artist with no publicly known artwork (except the artbook itself), depicting paintings that don't exist (except as they do in the artbook itself) with a fake context of critical appreciation (except as was won with the artbook itself).
This is very different from being "inspired" by the trivia that a Kooning sold for $300 million or Hirst was the figurehead of the YBAs, or Paik was the first to prominently to incorporate video in sculpture.