jason pierce writes:
>
>i agree with everything josh says or will say on the issue
>of "anti art".
I disagree with everything Jason says or will say on the issue of anti-art, including
the above statement.
I think Jason is making fun of me b/c I haven't (yet/recently) made any statements on
the issue, just asking questions about what people think.
About Born's comment about something has to be art to be "meaningful"... I really
like thinking about the limits of art, or the perceptions of art. Perhaps before
talking about anti-art, I should have asked what is art? Suppose I had an event score
"Give $10 to a homeless person." I do this. Does the homeless person think it is art?
Probably not. Is it meaningful? Probably so. Suppose I have an event score "Send a
nasty letter to someone you don't know." I do this. the person reads the letter. Does
he think it is art? Probably not. Does he find it meaningful? Probably so.
This afternoon I spent hours going through boxes of tapes from hundreds or people
around the world, really really bad noise music tapes, much of them existing seemingly
for the sole purpose of using the word "shit" in the title. I am sure all of this was
intended to be art. I view it as such. Did I find it meaningful? No I did not.
Someone comes up to you and gives you a flower.
Is it art?
Is it meaningful?
-Josh Ronsen
http://www.nd.org/jronsen
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
