Art, whatever you may think of it, is made to be sold. Someone is expected to be paying for it because it is art. Otherwise it's not art, it's something banal. That urinal or those cans of soup were banal until they were entered into an exhibition for sale as art. Pollock' paintings were banal paint splashes like so many others until he got someone willing to pay to see and own them.
The problem, then, is that if you are going to commercialize this art, you must describe it. You must build an interpretative model of it so as to have a sales pitch for it! It's a requirement of marketing, and modern art is not exempt form it! But once you do that you invent "educational pre-requisites" (that which features in your sales pitch!) for the appreciation of your new art. If you don't do that you can't grantee any kind of resale value for your "art" not repeatability for the sale, or reputation as an artist. Are remains a discipline with its own "education" so long as it remains a commercial activity. Modern artists are no different from the renaissance ones who sought wealthy patrons, and their arn no more free of taught interpretative frameworks.
You want a true revolution in ark? Kill its commercialization. Kill all ways to make money from it. Then art will fundamentalist change. Until then its method will remain the same, whatever the changes in themes and fashions.
I think that there's a lot to be said for the critique of comnecial- but it's a critique that historically comes out of modern art itself, not in opposition to it. The immediate post-war period produced a host of movements pursuing very similar ideas, most notoriously the Dadaists, who sought to dissolve the existence of capital-A "Art" as a discrete and sacred sphere of production. That many of the most (in?)famous modern artists were happy to engage in art as a commercial activity doesn't say anything in particular about modern art, any more than the identical behaviour of latter-day classicists says anything about classical art.
I don't see it as any more problematic than any other piece of art being sold (or, for that matter, any other human creation, period). If that's what it sells for, that's what it sells for; not as if anyone's starving for the lack of it.
Do you think it is a better art than the Romantically Apocaliptic website was posted here? (I actually love those comics. They are like, for me, the 'maximal representation of internet art'
Lol what kind of crap are you getting at here? Do you think it is crap art or not-art?
They probably did. It was a Cage memorial concerto. I don't particlarly like the piece itself, but it actually has a lot of substance if you delve into Cage's aesthetic articles and his philosophy of music. It actually taught me to appreciate the world a lot more.
He didn't do anything, he made a joke at one point acknowledging that fact. How much did that cost them? They could have done it themselves in the comfort of their own home.
How? In what possible way could this happen, he didn't do anything.
It's a contextual piece accompanied by a series of articles. In itself, it only baffles people. I personally dislike the piece; that is, I understand it as art, but I do not understand it as music.
And that they could do it in the comfort of their own home is part of his point - experiencing silence. But that particular piece can't be done. It is pretty dumb, yes, it's pretty much about absorbing the atmosphere and listening to the sounds emitted from the rest of the crowd and the pages turning.
This is an air-headed interview of him where he explains his liking of sound. I think it's a bunch of nonsense (He has become much more insane than in his early days), but it isn't nonsense in his articles.
Your kneejerking over this, however, isn't particularly useful in any kind of discourse of the subject matter. If you are interested in this, understand the premises. Your latest post was much more useful than the first, where you questioned why the hell people would participate in that. That allowed me to explain (albeit very superficially) what was going on.
To many musicians today - the piece caused an uproar back then - it is an eccentricity, a joke, something you try to replicate simply for the heck of it. And you'd be surprised how it actually influences people while not really doing anything. If anything, people feel very strongly about it with strong opposition, disdain, or even hate, or embracement and curiosity.
Just to ask you, are you hinting I am one such arrogant king? Because I am not. I only further the discourse that art is undertaking today, something many more people than me have decided is a thing. I don't support many of these things, I only reproduce the arguments than others have presented. I have not matured enough as an artist to have a personal opinion on "true art".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
