 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Elok
There should be certain requirements that need to be met, IMO, before something can be recognized as Art:
1. It must be interesting to at least one person other than the one who made it. |
Why?
quote: 2. It must be valuable for its own sake, not just for any actual function it may have. |
Surely, being an expression, it is it's own function. Er. But yeah. That's what I mean when I say the expression itself must be meaningful.
quote: 3. It must inspire deeper feeling on some level in some people. |
It must be designed to, certainly. But again, why does art need a second person? I mean, a medium onto nothing is a bit ****, I agree, but surely a Picasso in a cave is still, as it were, a Picasso?
quote: 4. It must require some form of discernible talent to execute. |
Circular argument. What measure of talent is there except that the result is good art?
quote: 5. It must be intentionally artistic at the time of its creation. |
Okay, I'll concede this one. 
I'll stick to my "intensity, complexity and unity of both ideas and expression" criterion, thank you. 
I think Tunick's piece is art, because it certainly plays with your mind and your perception of surfaces and textures, as well as evoking images of mass-coreographed totalitarian gatherings. The body, like in a modern dance piece, is used to represent something else - a cobble-stone, a simple piece in a massive puzzle - while at the same time posed in an exposed, emotionally vulnerable way. The street paved with naked people is both a visually interesting image and a commentary on the human condition, what more do you need?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|