I know our class discussion about ethics is over but I couldn't help but write this after I read an article about "art."
I of course know how ridiculous some artists are about what they call "art." I was at the IMA and the contemporary art collection had a piece of string on the wall and called it "art." As pointless as this seems to me, apparently someone was moved by this piece and payed for it to be in a museum. The fact that people think this is art is absurd but it truthfully means nothing to me. I know some pieces of art are horrible maybe hardly considered art, but what if you went into an art gallery and saw a starving dog chained to a wall. No really, an ACTUAL starving dog chained to a wall. WHAT? may be your first impression, but yes, I recently found out that some artist from South America was ALLOWED to put a dog on a chain and starve him as a piece of art. The dog eventually died, but here's the crazy part, he is actually being asked to put up another starving dog at another exhibition. My first issue is the ethics of it, but secondly, I question art. Of course I think painting a canvas white is hardly art, but I don't really seem THAT opinionated to do something about it. But when it comes to the dog, I want to question the meaning of art.
I think a) the article was shocking and b) why do i decide to question the issue of art once it becomes a personal issue that deals with my ethics.
Just thought that was interesting..
3 comments:
I heard about the starving dog thing too. I guess that's why so many ppl don't like contemporary art. Alot artists believe that art is something special and unusual; something ppl don't see in everyday life. and i suppose the artist is trying to make a statement about maybe not to mistreat ur animal or help staving children or animal.
This all gets back to notions of absolute truth. Are there absolutes of truth in any area, and if so, is art one of them? Art seems the most susceptible to the relativistic claim of "anything goes," but is "anything goes" actually a valid position?
We are also back to the public vs. private issue. If a person chained a starving dog in his backyard and refused to feed it, wouldn't the authorities arrest him for cruelty to animals? What has happened here seems a reversal of the usual course of things. More typically a free society will allow a person to do pretty much whatever in the privacy of his own home, but will restrict certain public actions. This exhibit seems the reverse of that.
WOW! Talk about going out of your way for your art. That is just toooooo far. Well some people call string attached to paper art and some people call blotches of ink art so how people perceive art amazes me too, but I guess we have to understand people are allowed to hold any perspective as they want, even though it seems absurd to us it might seem logically valid for them. We are allowed to be opinionated either way, but going as far as to starve another life, is definitely poking into the area of ethics. I think the artist truly is a selfish idiot. He selfishly harms life for his amusement and glory. Im all for expressing yourself, but you need to express yourself independent of hurting another living individual. Thats just inhumane!
Post a Comment