Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
(emphasis mine)
As I read you, you are debating from the basis that you, and only you, know what art is and what is not. And apparently you know better than the artist what he/she ought to have created instead.
|
Nope, you are apparently deliberately missing my point and keep trying to put words in my mouth that I am not saying.
No where have I said that I am the supreme arbiter of what is or isn't art, nor do I consider myself to be that. I gave
my opinion on why the work under discussion wasn't art, and merely gave a suggestion for a work containing both shit and a statue that would both offend AND have layers of meaning that would challenge the viewer.
I'm saying that everything that is called "art" is not necessarily "art". Sometimes the Emperor actually isn't wearing any clothes and it's up to us as intelligent beings to refuse to be sheep and keep on ignoring the fact. Who decides what is "art" - the work's creator or its viewer? Do you automatically accept everything as "art" just because you're told that's what it is?
What is the difference between an "artist" throwing shit on a statue, and a pigeon shitting on a statue? Both are doing it deliberately. Why is one "art" and the other isn't? Are we required to be so politically correct when viewing "art" that we can no longer say yea or nay to it without being viewed as some sort of Philistine?
I'm saying that it is not uncommon for artists to create work that deliberately offensive in order to gain public recognition, and that the thought behind the work is not to create a piece of "art" but to create publicity. Do you disagree with that?