brawltogethernow:roachpatrol:pervocracy:rikodeine:i love this so much i dont know where to s
brawltogethernow: roachpatrol: 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 on The 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. art happens in museums whether you like it or not I’ve always respected that last uplifting, quietly threatening comment. “Art happens in museums whether you like it or not” is also kind of equatable to “literature happens in the canon whether you like it or not,” and it actually demonstrates the power of social proof.For example, if I stumbled across Joyce’s writing online without knowing who wrote it, I’d probably get annoyed, frustrated, and dismiss it as unnecessarily convoluted. But if I know it’s Joyce or if it’s handed to me in a literature classroom, there’s enough social proof for me to believe there’s something meaningful here. I’ll give it more if a chance.This, I think, is why you’ll often see artists and writers start out with accessible work, before creating increasingly experimental and challenging work over time. The reason is partially because they develop as artists, but also because they need to build artistic clout to prove to audiences that their work is worth deep, complicated analysis.Joyce is a good example. Finnegan’s Wake was so utterly complex and impenetrable that even after having “proven” himself with earlier works, many were still resistant to the novel. If he’d written the book at the beginning of his career, however, nobody would have given it a chance.Anyhoo, long story short, social proof (such as a museum, classroom, or canon) is a powerful thing – and while it can help us identify complex artworks that are worthy of a deep time commitment, it can also fool us into deeply analyzing something like glasses on the floor. -- source link