LOVE
she is awsome ,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7098707.stm
fuck the artist caues they didnt "understand"
This women made a good stmt about Art.,,,
cheers boys and girls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7098707.stm
fuck the artist caues they didnt "understand"
This women made a good stmt about Art.,,,
cheers boys and girls
posted by apunctum at 11/20/2007 03:07:00 AM
7 Comments:
did she have to have lipstick on while 'kissing' the painting?
I beg to differ actually.
I liked in fact what the lawyer said: "love requires the consent of both sides".
This is simply vandalism.. and from how she is posing to the media, I think it's also an act of attention seeking.
walahi ya kidz ur missing the point.
This women made a statment about ART and that it is not just something to be experianced passivley.
Its the same as the french man who pissed in Duchamp's urinal and said that Duhamp wouldve wanted him to piss in it.
As for vandalism , u have to place this painting in its larger cultural and artistic context. She didnt just ruin somebodys picture of their mohter , or broke a public tranist door. What she did is left an audiance imprent (lip-print) on an art work that u are supposed to "enjoy" and experiance passivley.
Thats why the nutcases went and tried immidiatly to "restore" it back to its "original" form and erase any "additions" to it!
They want the work of art to stand still and not to change and this women changed it by the ppl who are experiancing it.
Again , u have to view this painting as a "work of art" and the status such a title claims and the function and role it has in the social sphere....
cheers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4587988.stm
what you said sadiki is true, but only theoretically, and in a utopian setting.
However, in this far-from-perfect world, imagine what would happen if everyone starts expressing himself 'actively' in art galleries. It will become a filthy street with graffiti-esque 'expressions' all over it. If she interacted this way with the painting, how about someone else who passionately hated the painting and wanted to spit on it, as a way of interaction and expression. Is it still ok? where would you draw the line? what will be left from the artwork if it's covered by 'additions' from non-passive ppl?
Plus, what about the ppl who also love the painting "as is", and want it to be "as is", without any additions... wouldnt these 'additions' be impositions and intrusions and actually mutilations?
Again I say... your point of view about art is absolutely true, but Im not sure how it may work in our real world.
ta
imagine you create any piece of your work, whether an article, a movie, a website, your own, intended initially to stay that way after long days of thinking and work, studying every single and minute detail, its meaning, function, aesthetic role and you send it out, you just exhibit it in one way or another, computer, journal... any medium, then someone comes in and loves what you did and changes the order, the visual one, the functional one, the mental one... he or she just intrudes themselves in your world without any permission...
would this have been an interactive piece, no problem...otherwise, uninvited
kollko 3al bataaal
ma fashar! al batal la yamout!
Post a Comment
<< Home