leavy,
re: your response to my response to you talking about my post.
you're hopelessly naive about this. you're attributing what you hope to be motives of artists ("Rather it presents itself as a gift, freely given") to what you define as ART. please. artists are whores, too, and often as not are making shit to sell it. that it's good - that you enjoy it - is a testament to the fact that the artist is good at his job, not that it's a "gift."
the flip side of this, then, is that something designed to sell something else - as opposed to just itself which is, i'll reiterate, the JOB of most art - can be art, too. most of the prints in my
house are posters - advertising magazines, mostly, but are advertisements. they're art. that they were made a hundred years ago does not exclude them from being commercials, too - just as nike's 60-second spots aren't disqualified from being art merely by being made today.
jkd
========
Well, I'm wrong. Or at least I'm not right. Which reduces me to the stupid questions of a prententious 1st year at Oberlin..."what is art?" Blah, etc. That's a long road to navigate, and I don't REALLY know enough to start down it. Suffice to say, my flowery longing for art as defined by intent fails to explain objects of ordinary purpose (ie, ancient pottery) and it reduces things too finely and inaccurately. To JKD..does intent matter then at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment