Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
^^
I think that's a very astute analysis, in fact. Very nice post.
I'd add that her "hoax" reflects the same misunderstanding about contemporary art that was the basis of the original post too--that "artsy-fartsy" people are bound to line up in defense of this "shock art" by the droves, when in truth most of us find those sorts of shenanigans pretty boring in this post-Duchamp age. In other words, I suspect that part of her agenda was to "poke fun" at contemporary avant-garde art, but in doing so only revealed her own ignorance about it. In the end, since she's an undergrad, and thus still pretty young, I'm inclined to cut her some slack on this--bu the author of the linked article ought to know better, it seems to me.
|
yeah, I guess you're right that she deserves a bit of slack. I think most of us, regardless of discipline or degree of artsy-fartsiness, have undergrad output that was just a bad idea and which we hope is completely forgotten by the rest of the world. Making those sorts of mistakes is part of the learning process, it's just that hers are displayed (by necessity, given their shock-art leanings) for everyone to scrutinize and criticize, which they will throughout her entire career. Going back to the issue of pedagogy, the question isn't what instruction has led her to this point. It's whether her instructors and advisors will sit down with her and say, regardless of all the criticism in the media and such, here's why this project was unsuccessful as a piece of art. Just as if she had done a pretentious and poorly made painting. Hopefully every other art instructor across north america is looking at this incident and giving their students similar lectures.