Monday, October 24, 2005
Heads up
There's a new reality show we all ought to be looking out for. Send celebrities to art school and see how they do? That could be frightening. But the article describing the show addresses the way art has become a complicated language of internal references. It might interest some readers, and I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Is the artwork any good or is it just darn clever?" That word "clever" has surfaced in many recent articles I've been reading. For some contemporary artists cleverness seems to be a popular point of departure when considering themes. But it is also a fertile area when the critics arrive. That fine line has become the war zone when discussing the merit of conceptual work. Whether an artist has really created meaningful work may depend on how well their cleverness holds up to traditional standards. For me, ha, I always enjoy a good laugh, and I don't care whether the critics consider it good art or not. The true test is time. If the work will be relevant in 20 or 30 years, I think it is "good art." Otherwise I enjoy the folly.
I love this time bomb metaphor you're introducing, Chris, as if there were a statute of limitations on on goofiness and, after 40 years, society could finally be expected to make meaningful assessments about importance. In fact, I think it would be wise if for one month we imposed a kind of moratorium on diagnosing histoical significance and accepted entertainment value as a legitimate good. At least we could collectively enjoy "cleverness" instead of fretting about its status as the backhanded compliment of our age.
Post a Comment