Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joelnwil
The thing that bothers me about this kind of stuff is that it certainly - and rightly - gives the artistic community a bad name. Where is there a sane artist or professor who denounces this as non-art and fundamentally fradulent? Let's hear from the professors of art at the universities, and from some real artists. Any word from them? Or are they just as stupid and deranged as this woman and the Art Gallery. Are artists all so stupid that nobody will condemn this?
|
Really, she's a piker compared to some of the truly depraved and morally bankrupt members of the "art community" SWMBO is always railling on about Damien Hirst (sp?) Google some links as to what he calls art. The critics and collectors lap it up with a spoon.
I'm far from PETA, (friends *do* eat friends) but a particularly egregious example of his was to adhere live butterflies to wet paint on his canvas.
It serves no point, it doesn't illuminate or educate, it doesn't heal people, or uplift in any way.
I recall a story my friend told me about when he and his brothers were young: They were sitting around and my friend's brother was pulling the legs off an ant. His uncle came along and told him to stop. The brother began to launch into a whole quasi philosophical rationalization about how the ant doesn't feel pain like we do, and how it isn't hurting the ant, etc. And the uncle looked at the boy and said "I don't care what it's doing to the ant, I care about what it's doing to you."
That stopped him cold and gave him something to think about.
Leaving aside the matter of what is happening to the butterflies, what is the "artwork" doing to you, the viewer?