note to self: if i want my work to get lots of attention - use porn.
actually, i like the piece. pretty hilarious i think. i think it works - for me
- on a number of levels. one, as a deconstruction of porn - what i mean is how
it refuses the viewer any engagement in terms of believability that these acts
are somehow the result of passion as porn usually attempts to do (and often
unsuccessfully). this is sex devoid of sexuality. Intercourse without intimacy.
likewise, art is often celebrated as the spontaneous passionate creation of the
of the artist, when often it is much more contrived and constructed than
romantic narratives of "The Artist" would have us believe. Then there's the
sexist paintbrush as phallus concept, which was a common idea in the 19th
century (still pretty common today sadly) - that is creativity designated as a
male trait passed on from The Father or a male Godhead to his sons. In a
strange way the piece reminds me of something Lars Von Trier might have done
had he attended an art academy (just
before being kicked out). all in all i'd say the piece is more thought
provoking for me than the original and definitely funnier. ...but of course the
original wasn't really an original either. in terms of comments on the site,
what's the point really, like most comments on social networked sites i usually
regret i even read them. it seems that a dialogue of named people might be much
more useful.
mark
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
