Tuesday, March 08, 2005
This was a very big post about today's art, and how it's dangerously close to something esoteric, how we are given little freedom from the "art professionals" to not like a work they appreciate (while at the same time admitting they don't know how to even describe it or what it's about). My main source (often criticized by me) was a very interesting old article at artnewsonline.
Some of the quotes I used were:
"It's brilliant work and, fortunately, I continue to fail to understand it."
"The nature of really serious art is that you don't know what you're looking at. You're impressed by some quality or bothered by some quality. You don't know why it's the way it is or how it came to be that way."
I questioned the concept of "serious art".
I wrote about art charlatans who manipulate the (re)viewers by putting a rich network of references which give the work "depth".
I hinted this could be - but isn't necessarily - the case of Matthew Barney.
I forgot to tastefuly hint that he lives with Bjork.
I also suggested that if someone insists on knowing your opinion about a work you feel completely out of your world, you can either say "it's nice" (and thus make a statement), or compare it to Donkey Kong.
And then, I previewed this huge post, and did a silly thing, and erased it all. So you just have to use your imagination.
Oh, and I talked a little about John Cage and suggested you might like him as well, and recommended this album , and then I think I wrote something about not really liking Matthew Barney but said that this Cremaster (3) is probably the one generally considered the best. And I wrote it would be nice if you helped me maintain the site and entered through my links... And now that I've wasted 3 hours, I think it would be bloody great.