Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 16:36:26 -0600 (CST) From: Kenneth Elliott <kelliott-AT-utdallas.edu> Subject: Re: public On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, Michael Thomas wrote: > It seems the artist who destroyed the installation has learned quite well > to be judgemental and was most certainly playing his own quality card. > > Could someone expand on why these pieces are "art but not very good art?" > Thanks. > > Michael Thomas > > Michael Thomas > lpierre-AT-mcs.com Perhaps because the pieces were too easy? In its broadest (?!) sense, art is artificial -- created by humans. Good art would be something uniquely human, would even push the limits of human possibility in the (combined) defining features of humanity. Good art would require the rigor of sapient thought interwoven with an intense spiritual dimension and excellence in physical execution. A person chained to a doghouse does not require much in the way of thought and negates the uniquely human spiritual intensity by suggesting that, despite appearances, humans are dogs. Destruction of an artwork does not even require a central nervous system. A fluke electrical fire would have been no more or less effective. I'm sure I'm missing a pointed message about brutality from an artist who destroys another's work, but then humans are not the only brutal forces of nature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth Elliott - kelliott-AT-utdallas.edu | `I used to dig up bones so white H: (214) 692-7877 W: (214) 883-2062 | and pure they would break your http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~kelliott | heart.' -Tiernan Alexander- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005