libertarirynn:johnnyramonesanticommunistshirt:pervocracy:rikodeine:i love this so much i dont know w
libertarirynn:johnnyramonesanticommunistshirt:pervocracy:rikodeine:i love this so much i dont know where to start- the comedy itself - the commentary on ‘what is art’- further on what is art: the viewers are interpreting this as art, but the intention of the “artist” was not actually art, so is it art or not? who gets to decide, the viewers or the creator?- the act of placing the glasses and watching the response (and the response itself being that the viewers treated the glasses as art) as performance artlike is this a critique of postmodernism? does the critique betray itself since (one could argue) the viewers interpreting the glasses as art makes them art? or is that so ridiculous that it doesn’t matter? i could go onThe intention of the “artist” was not actually art, but… their intention was to create a specific image for public display in order to evoke a reaction from an audience, and then to create an image of that in order to evoke a different reaction from a second audience.I think they accidentally arted. Twice.I hate everything about this postThis stuff is why my art appreciation class was so deliciously easy. I just bullshitted my way through all the assignments with random drivel about “what is really art” and got an A. -- source link