On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:34 AM, caldwell-brobeck <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Or maybe I'm just used to dealing with a small minded peanut gallery >> stuffed on sour grapes. You know the sort, the ones that reduce >> discussions to ad hominem attacks in order to avoid confronting >> anything out of their normal purview. >> >> But back to aesthetics. If an important aspect of art is social >> commentary, why not the helicopter cat? Is it really that different >> from a meat dress? The comments on the video are interesting, being a >> mix of complimentary and antagonistic. Were the artists aiming to give >> people who hate art a reason to do so? Or is it a case of artists >> working in one micro-culture doing something they thought creative >> only to find it they've transgressed boundaries of the wider culture? >> Should they care, if they are happy with their work? >> >> I also think Joseph's question "Why does stuff like that appear on >> Yahoo?" pretty relevant; it leads to questions of how various media >> probe the limits of acceptability in the continual search for markets. >> >> Exactly. In a society where the gatekeepers have been brushed aside to > make a field of endeavor even more inclusive, the mass of wannabe's now > feel that there only chance for recognition has to do more with standing > out rather than creating something that has anything to do with quality. >
I guess I'm a bit more sanguine; I certainly don't have any beef against the disappearance of gatekeepers; dirigisme in culture more or less died in the end of the 19thC. I much prefer door openers (my current favourite being Eric Kandel). As for the Orvillecopter, apparently the artists have been offered 100,000 pounds for it, so it certainly speaks to someone. See the Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/c8qu2p7 And I do occasionally threaten my Corgi with being turned into a muff, he'd make a good one. Cheers; Chris
