Holding value in considering context is a context in itself, as is a formalist value in considering art in a state free of historical context (no, I’m not being semantic, I’m being historiographical) and neither is necessarily ‘correct’. I’m personally keen on context but if someone wants to approach art with an ‘art for art’s sake’, ‘art speaks for itself’ view and deal with formal and personal aesthetic response, that’s groovy with me.
[I’m joining this thread because the Pit thread is getting dicky and the topic is more interesting than that]
Oh, man, the funniest post in a while…
Depends on who shit it out. Pollock could have done it, signed it and it would have been called a masterpiece.
So much of this thread can be summed up as “Conceptual art confuses me, and I’m pretty sure the artist is making fun of me. This obviously makes me feel insecure, which in turn makes me defensive, which ultimately makes me go on the offense against all art that isn’t pretty and easily understood.”
No. It’s “i"m pretty sure this artists is full of pretentious shit and takes us all for suckers.”
Throughout time artists have fought against people defining art. Jackson Pollack and the drippers faced ridicule . But after awhile, art definition grows and takes them inside the definition.
I was at an art exhibition a few years ago, where artists were doing works of art that would deliberately stretch the definition. They included kinetic sculptures and others that after one showing would fall apart. The point was that critics and people can not define art. Art will define itself. You don’t have to like it or agree.
So, is the piece from Kippenberger & Cleaning Woman now?
If the piece becomes famous for this incident and is more highly sought after, could the insurer argue that the piece did not lose value and that therefore they do no have to pay?
If the value goes up, how can you sue the cleaning lady for damages?