felix qui possit rerum cognoscere causas
|
December 08, 2002
The inscrutability of modern art
I suppose I am one of those who's not sophisticated enough to appreciate modern art. The concept of "art" has been defined to be so broad these days, that it's actually hard to tell whether you're looking at a profound statement of 21st century urban angst that also satirizes western consumerism and the SUV, or whether it's actually just a piece of flattened horseshit on the road. I take comfort from the fact that I am not alone in this. The visitors of an art show in Germany thought the body of a woman lying on the floor was a piece of performance art. It took them a while to realize that she was dead. (Via GeekPress.) Comments
Well, if the visual effects of September 11 can be considered art, as some European nutcase arty type insisted (can't remember who, but I think he was German), then so can the after effects of a coronary. I'm sure it's more intellectually satisfying to ponder the aesthetics of performance art than it is to perform CPR! Posted by: ellie on December 9, 2002 03:11 PMThe visual effects of 9/11 can easily be considered art, so can a cadaver in the middle of an art show. Art is not necessarily about paint on canvas or the creative phyical contructs of ones psyche. Art is more about the senses that are invoked upon encoutering it. You can use distasteful images to invoke rage or even disgust. That is the entire premise behind photography. It not like the artists create the images, they capture it so that they may convey it to others who werent there to see it. Posted by: MMC on May 8, 2003 11:00 PMPost a comment
|