"This was a criminal offense. I'm not someone's home and broke the table of coffee and call that art "He stated very upset when the artists Tracy Emin Chinese Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi almohadazos started a war with the pads of his work, My Bed, exhibited at the Tate Modern in 1999. The artists were arrested by police on charges of criminal attack on a "work of art." Yuan Chai declared martial attack position "Kung Fu" We are artists, we wanted to work from Emin. " Interaction, the idea that the artistic work is in the process because the viewer is going to finish the work, is part of rhetorical discourse that accompanies most contemporary art, but when an action happens around the work, as in this case, it appears that this is untouchable over and that the viewer can not get close because they fall to blows. Emphasizing that those Chinese are artists, ie are consistent with the theory that art establishes that they have authority to intervene and transform a work without a crime. Most of these works are betting on the scandal as the only aesthetic value, or operation of the wrong-as is the case of Duchamp, a urinal upside down in an unusual site, and is that this will encourage the viewer to react and think. On another occasion these Kung-fu artists decided that Duchamp's urinal was an invitation and urinated in which is shown in the Tate. The museum said: "Two artists broke the pleasant visit of a work publicly attacking and against our staff." Wetting and register almohadazos is not art, but neither is a dirty bed or a urinal, then why did the Chinese are doing is a criminal attack? Never specify what is to where it can react and if it is valid under provocation or insult.
Antiquities in the National Museum of Sweden, the artist Dror Gunilla Skold Feiler and made an installation in homage to a Palestinian terrorist with a bomb killed 21 people and wounded another 54. Tank filled with red water museum, to look like blood and placed in a boat photo of the terrorist. Israel's ambassador to protest the glorification of terrorism, threw into the pond one of the lamps illuminating the scene and caused a short circuit in the gallery. Bingo! Artists and museum officials complained of censorship and made their show to the media misunderstood.
The point is that if you deliberately shocked Why are indignant with the reaction? Because outrage is an assembly, is the opportunity to manipulate the challenge for news with something without intellectual and aesthetic value. The reality is that these works aim with incitements to be meat holders. The reflection adds nothing to seek its objectives, the applause is a ritual endogamous unnoticed, but when the scandal emerged the work there, not before. The interaction of public debate in contradictions and pitfalls, first demanding that the viewer is a fan-package that is swallowed and whatever other topics incite confrontation with immediate attention. Everything is set to be breached or violated, worthless materials, the invoice is absent or negligible quality, many are ephemeral works or to see and throw it away, others are direct insults and free, glorification of violence or morbidity, and so forth. If the viewer is educated, wise and accessible, as should be assumed that the work is forgotten and hence the recycling warehouse. If the viewer takes the bait and respond, touch, manipulate, rages or laughs, the play paradox exists and oh! the artist feels humiliated and demands respect. So the Chinese have committed a criminal attack, because they emphasized that the worst that can happen to this assumption is that the public art reflect and be "sensitive" and accept the works as objects of content intellectual. Follow Case Yoko Ono to "touch only with the mind" leads to the abyss of oblivion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment