Josh wrote:
>> As for Anti-art I think it's a fairly daft term in many ways because one
>> needs to practice art in order to practice anti-art.
>Ack. I did not write this. I think Jason Pierce did. I would never use the
word "daft" unless I was making fun of the English.
Actually Josh I wrote it. I think the word daft aptly sums up the idea of
anti-art. Basically I think it's all art.
BTW - Daft is a great word for bringing things into perspective...I assume
it's not in popular usage in the United States.
Josh the definition you gave proves that anti-art is as much art as art.
Also the term comes from a time when for some reason or other people didn't
realise or didn't want to realise that every creative act is art. As for
Duchamp he wasn't really anti-art but rather had to invent an intriguing
standpoint for himself when he decided to foist his readymades upon an
audience who he knew would react badly when presented with such things in
the name of art.
Of course my real reason for thinking the concept of anti-art daft is the
fact that most people who would describe their work in such a vein are in
fact desperate to be accepted by the art establishment....hope this doesn't
upset anyone but I have found this to be true in my experience anyway...it
may of course not be generally true as my experience is probably quite
limited in the great scheme of things.
cheers,
Sol.
