|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Art Gallery |
Is it still art? |
Ok, so the other week I was at the Gallery in Melbourne seeing the Guggenhiem Collection Exhibition and came upon the piece by artist Dan Flavin, called: Untitled. (You can see it here: http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/guggenheim/ind... It's the first image on the right of screen as you scroll down) As you can see, it's just a collection of neon tubes that he has arranged in rowes. So now, just imagine one of the tubes burns out and gets replaced by one of the gallery staff. Is it still Dan's work? (Since he's now dead) Once all the bulbs get replaced by someone else, is it still art, or is it just a collection of lights, no more important than neon lights on a restaraunt window? What makes this piece art? Is it because it looks pretty or something, or more so because of the IDEA that Dan was trying to put across to his audience? You remind me of the story of P.G. Wodehouse's typewriter. He only ever used one typewriter for his entire career. By the time he died, however, every part of his typewriter had been replaced, even the chassis. So was it in fact the same typewriter? And if it was a different one, at which point did it become so? I guess the answer in the case of this artwork for me is the concept is the art, not the particular tubes that the artist used. If they maintain the integrity of the piece, keeping the same sized tubes in the same relation to each other, then the artwork remains the same. In answer to your other question, these days art is in the eye of the person who creates it and calls it art. Whether he or she can convince anyone else is another story. It must be considered hazardous however to make artwork out of continually disposable objects. no one who would live in this world could ever understadn art Anything can be called art validly, so I suppose it's the idea. Anyway, as long as the neon tubes that replace the originals are the same, it's still his artwork. After all, they do touch-up the Mona Lisa. well, I think that as long as they were still placed in the same fashion, with the same kind of lights, etc., it would still be Dan Flavin's work. Thats because even though he did not put together that scene, he created it. Do you get what i mean? Say somebody redid the Mona Lisa. Just because they had drawn it, it doesnt mean that it is really their art. Sure, they drew it, but they did not create that image. (i just saw flux's answer, sorry! hey, great minds think alike) I went to the Guggenhiem in New York and thought that most of the 60's - 70's "art work" displayed was crap JMO lol,, its not art just because dan flavin made it. wtf, do you seriously think it wouldn't be art if someone replaced a tube? it would still be art if someone put a dead chicken in the middle of it with a straw in its mouth dripping yellow sperm. it doesn't matter. it amazes me what other people are thinking about when they go to gallery's. some people need to let go. actually soaking in peoples ideas as feelings |
| Tags |
| Photography Jobs Photography Equipment Photography Courses Photo Gallery Photo Essays Art Gallery Wedding Photography Stock Photography Product Photography Jewelry Photography |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |