How banal to waggle old, established, officially accepted art with
snobbish disapproval at new, contemporary art.
Why do you assume that we wish to "surprise" people at sci.lang? Is
this the extent of your limited imagination? Do you only hold opinions
of art that are sanctioned by authoritative art journals?
Perhaps surprise is not the point. Perhaps there is no point. Perhaps
there are a infinite number of points. Art is not created by the
artist alone, nor the art critic. I don't know if this work will be a
"pubertary" joke or a masterpiece of Dadaism or an epic poem in the
tradition of Homer. That is partially up to the participating artists
who send out their works. But it is also up to the readers.
As Duchamp pointed out: "All in all, the creative act is not performed
by the artist alone...the spectator brings the work in contact with the
external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications
and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."
I provide only a small set of symbols, a set of parameters. From the
moment I clicked "post" this work assumed a life of it's own. It is
now up the artists to do what they will wit it...or perhaps they do
nothing? And it is up to the spectators to do what they will with
it...to love it, to hate it, to interpret it, to be befuddled by it, to
reject it, or ignore it altogether.
To quote another great Dadaist, Andre Breton: "No rules exist, and
examples are simply life-savers answering the appeals of rules making
vain attempts to exist."
|
|