Quote:
Originally Posted by chid
Many artists, including myself do these things purely for the discourse they create. They clearly know who funds them but don't you think it is funny that they get funding and are allowed to express these criticisms in a creative (sometimes) fashion? Art - esp. contemporary art IMO has a main function to force its viewers into shock / displeasure / enjoyment ONLY for the dialogue it creates and the thoughts it provokes
|
I can see your point and it definitely does stir up conversations and provoke thought, usually starts along the lines of WTF???
For me I guess being exposed to it constantly changed my opinion and made me a little more cynical. I got tired of listening to 18/19 year olds from suburbia give their views on how corrupt/unfair society is and their need to "take action against the evil government and everything mainstream" when the government was in fact the only reason they were there. Pretending that what they were doing in their art classroom in Calgary was changing the world. Who knows maybe 100 years from now people will find some of the work profound, but I doubt it, I still believe that hammering a nail in the floor and calling it art is bogus. Any half wit with a brain cell could technically call themselves an artist, Johnny Knoxville is technically an artist, he just doesn't claim it as so.
IMO to be an artist you have to be able create something, whether it be drawing, painting, sculpting whatever that not everyone can do like draw realistically or design a great structure, pretty much all art before the 1970's and "contemporary". Again things like hanging string from a staircase takes ZERO creative thought or planning.