thanks and happy new decade all, lots here to mull through;
where and how do/ can we draw the line between bad art and bad causes?
kia ora
sjn
From: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Johanna
To pick up from yesterday, language reflects the conflicts in the term's
history. If art is complicit with the system, then logically it must
also be implicit in the system. Conversely, the system must then be
implicit or explicit in the art. This is mere wordplay, but already the
blame game
gh comments below:
On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Johanna Drucker wrote:
Artists should make what they want. But when we get to the critical
discussion of the cultural role and function of aesthetic objects, the
claims for the work often come out of a need for critical discourse to
find
gh comments below:
On Jan 3, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Sally Jane Norman wrote:
where and how do/ can we draw the line between bad art and bad causes?
gh comments:
Bad art is an aesthetic decision that is subjective. I've seen in my
lifetime art that was considered bad to become re-evaluated as
If I follow right, the argument is that we are all complicit, and
have to get used to the idea that we have to work within the beast.
That's a good, concise way of putting it. I don't mean to pick on
artists who just do what they do, but someone has to help make what they
do still potent.
Maybe bad art is art that does a bad thing. There is art which
tries to make a moral evil look like a moral good (take, for instance,
nature photography that is used to give a notorious polluter a
positive reputation or, say, propaganda which seeks to convince
people that a human rights
