lesson learned.
posted by jenni on September 2nd, 2012 at 9:20PM

You would think that after 4 years of art school I would have learned that reading about art written by scholars would be incomprehensible and ridicule as the french would say.   I think he may have written a few different essays on post-it notes then randomly picked some to create this essay.

The idea that if art is not conceptual it becomes art for arts sake is a theory that completely dismisses the actual process of making art, which is purely subjective and rarely for an actual audience. The evolution of a work of art can be more important to the artist than the final piece, if a work of art is ever really finished. IMHO (impressed ;) art for arts sake is the art that was discussed in this essay, the art created for the bourgeois and the "magical spirits," art to please the so-called masses. For example, the artwork created by the filmmaker in 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' was purely art for arts sake.

The concept of aura was to focus on the idea that with too much reproduction one loses the effects that an artwork leaves behind, whether physical or mental, I think. The value placed on tradition and technique for the sake of the aura of the work of art is bogus bogus bogus, especially in our day where remix and appropriation are just too much fun and pretty much essential to the evolution of the art world if we want to keep it in the hands of the artists and not the buyers.

I do like the fact that he mentioned the Dadaists, but I just really like them so whenever they are mentioned its a plus one from me. The epilogue I do not understand in the least.

Link | Parent