i feel that this reading forces the question of "what is art?" to resurface inside me. obviously with the introduction of new technologies and materials, new forms of art will surface, but i feel that there are limits that sometimes are pushed a little too far.
take for example Orlan's performance surgery. there have been surgery shows on TV for years now. is the only difference that hers has crazier costumes and backdrops? or perhaps is the difference that she aired it with the intent of having it be viewed as art?
this then begs the question: "is art done for the artist? or for the viewer?" if it is being done for the artist, well then there needn't be any qualifiers at all. as long as the artist is happy with the work, all is good. however, if the work is aimed at the viewer, than is the artist considered to have failed if the viewers are not connecting with the work?
Stelarc's hook piece did not do much for me, except for invoke a grimace of pain. if that was his goal then amen to him, but i did not really vibe with the commentary of astronauts in zero-g.
so another thought that enters my head is "the appreciation of art linked to education?" can only people who have studied and understand these super modern, sometimes bizarro exhibits or performances really get them? does the fact that sure, i could lay myself in a pool of honey and pretend to be a fetus, or inhale my own excrement, but i just didn't think about actually doing it and someone else did, did make it art?
so then who truly qualifies the art? i find Horn's finger extensions to be extremely interesting. the idea of extending ones appendages in order to remove oneself from the object and the interaction is a spot-on commentary on rise of the internet and fall of interaction in modern society. does this mean that her finger extenders are art, but her giant red arm pillars aren't, because i am not inspired by them near as much?
i wonder if in hundreds of years, the things that people are doing today are going to be regarded in the same aspect as how we view the classics from the renaissance. are people going to talk about the 20th and 21st century and label our artists the next generation of Van Goghs and De Vincis? did people in their times, ever view their work not as revolutionary, but ever as odd, disgusting... not artwork?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that this is an interesting argument. It is something that is talked about in many art classes. I think the distinction for what qualifies art is not just the maker, but a series of factors (maker/artist-> idea-> communication of idea-> viewer). I also think that art can be subjective because of these factors. If one person sees something and don't think it is art, someone else might see the same thing and think it is. Although I also wonder what people will think of contemporary art in the future. :)
I like Matt do not start this class with a lot of knowlege of what is art, I am more use to the classic art of sculpture and painting before this class i had hardly come across any mention of performance art, in the last few days performance art has been in the headlines of the papers and on CNN and FOX because of the bomb scare in Boston. It is a shame that the only way that and artist can be reconised is to go to jail.
matt if you need help with your project you can call me at 3019942246 or 3019943434 at this number leave a message if i am not there. joe
Post a Comment