Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alyasa
If an african child dying of AIDS, in his last days, was put in a hospital bed and placed in a gallery, would that be art?
|
...see, i don't know if i'm just being overly simplistic or semantic about this. it just seems like asking, "if i filmed an african child dying of AIDS, in his last days, would I have a film?"
and it's not just about the location, the fact that it physically takes place in a gallery. the art world is full of legitimizing institutions like galleries, museums, critics, patrons, grants, etc. kind of like when something is done by a professor at a university... it implies institutional support, even if it wasn't there explicitly.
that's why i think these are much more productive points to make:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by golden child
im surprised the gallery didnt step in and actually allowed this to happen
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sonicl
I don't really understand why the people who were looking at the "exhibit" allowed it to remain as it was. They are just as guilty as the "artist".
|
art is a social structure: if there was no gallery willing to exhibit this and no potential patrons eager to hang out on opening night, this would not have happened. i'm not trying to say the artist wasn't responsible, he absolutely was; it was his 'concept.'
but it was legitimized as art before it happened; denying that is useless and distracts from more important questions.