|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2011 : 07:53:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Gee, I sleep overnight and someone bozoes justin. |
No, I just forgot to lock his account. It was late. Fixed, now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2011 : 07:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Amidst a bunch of typically juvenile comments, there are some really great comments about the artistic message and value of this performance in the comments section of the Huffington Post article. Particular those of Roger Denson. Here's a snippet: | The value of performance art is determined when the questions and issues raised by it have a resonance beyond the mundane events of the performance and the narcissistic question of whether or not it's art. Giving birth in a gallery setting doesn't differentiate it from the billions of births before audiences of doctors, nurses, friends, family, etc. We need to hear and see something meaningful about giving birth in a gallery. So far the info and photos provided don't stimulate those questions, don't supply any new valuations or artistry concerning birth, especially given that we see a doll in place of the baby, and imagery that is little more than stagey and journalistic. Up to this point the artist depends on the "Is it art?," "Is it the first?" and "Is it scandalous?" debates. Let's see if the artist provides context for the birth that makes us think differently about childbirth in a significantly meaningful way. |
A lot of people have reacted to this performance with just the "yuck factor." And that is lame since what is gross is subjective and nobody was forced to watch this performance.
And a lot of people just question whether it is art or not, which IMO is the most boring goddamned question of all since such discussions have been going around in circles for literally decades and it doesn't address the subject and content of the work of art. Who cares if we decide to call it art or not, what does it mean? Also, whenever someone criticizes a work of art by simply declaring that it is not art, they are putting art on some kind of ridiculous pedestal. Kotak herself does this too when she's quoted in the article saying: | "The overall message that we will communicate to the child is that he or she was born in an art gallery because, as artists, that is our sacred space, and in doing this we are telling the world and our child that his or her life is a precious work of art." |
(My emphasis in bold.) There is nothing more "sacred" about an art gallery than any other place. Art is not worthy of more respect than any other activity. Specific artistic activities must EARN respect. Some art is shitty. Some art is stupid. Some is vulgar. Some is shallow. And when we treat something as venerable merely because it is art, we are doing the same thing as treating something as venerable merely because it is religious. The answer is not to declare bad art as not art. The answer is to call it bad and say why it is bad.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/31/2011 07:36:09 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Giving Birth As Performance Art
