On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, [] wrote:
why does art always have to be dangerous? is the world such a safe place that we need to turn to art for danger?
No one says it has to be one thing or another. It's not a question of danger. Ballet _is_ dangerous; young girls are encouraged to be anorectic, and people like Foofwa have spoken out against that. But the danger is hidden; ballet is hypocritical to the extent it points out a conceivably perfect human being with 'acceptable' sexuality that wouldn't be under any other circumstance. My work pointed that out; ballet itself, and Degas as far as I'm concerned, buries it.
it seems a bit snobby to me to re-define a piece of art in terms that would exclude the hoi-poloi, to re-sanctify it in order to exclude. as if only the few can see it for what it truly is - sexual and dangerous, while we poor fools we can only ah and bah and etc. and why is the sexual considered dangerous? my goodness, don't you watch MTV? But perhaps you don't mean sexual, perhaps you mean perverse.
No one is excluding anything. You're assuming the so-called hoi-polloi (your word not mine) wouldn't understand my pieces? Why is the sexual considered dangerous? Good grief. Look at Roheim, Foucault, Freud, the reaction to Freud, the legislation in this lovely country of ours. And no, I didn't mean perverse. I'm not sure I could even define perverse.
- Alan, not sure who your reply was addressed to (particularly the last section, which I think was to Talan?) -
