7 years ago

Contrary to the comments, I actually think this performance work of art is very cutting edge, intriguing and creative as a bizarre visual and interactive statement towards our consumerist and food over-indulging culture. With post-modern and contemporary art, I understand the lack of previous qualities that set art as something of significant value towards the entire world and as something everyone could visually understand. I believe that certain current artworks like a photograph of a potato selling for a million dollars, or a shark being shoved in a formaldehyde filled tank, or a artist starving a feral dog as a performance piece are completely justified in being morally questioned and called deplorable and abhorrent. But art is about the experience, the creativity, and the intellectual meaning now. In more conservative and classical art, they focused on skills, techniques, and realistic/beautiful replicating objects. But we now want more creativity and emphasis on their meanings and statements, because we see how that simply recreating something as it looks is quite meaningless, shallow, and mimetic in a sense. Of course, that is just the way that the current buyers, investors, and controllers of the art market are like, as well as art historians, so if someone is more interested in recreating an object as it appears, especially considering the fact that that is where a more steady flow of money goes to, rather than the risky area of fine (contemporary) arts. If you want to understand why art is so damn weird and seemingly a waste now, you have to understand that art is and has always been a luxury offered to the rich as a form of investment. Therefore, whatever the art market decides to do with art doesn't really concern the lower and middle class, and even the upper class because they are only buying in the work for monetary investment or fame. Art also needs to change for there to be new things because we prioritize creativity, therefore we have so many art genres and styles, as well as cutting edge art. It is this cutting edge art that defines art for what it really is now. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is: if the work is the first style/subject/meaning, etc. has been witnessed by no one before, then it is more likely to be critically claimed because it simply is the first, it is the pioneer of a new kind of art. So if someone makes a drawing of squiggly lines in crayon, then he/she is w creative genius. However, someone copying off of that kind of art that has already been done will no beg fame and fortune, because art is not supposed to have mimetic qualities.

8 |