Halvard Johnson wrote:
>{ It is supposed to be off-limits to ask what an artist's intention was,
>{ but I'm asking anyway. I gather Christo and Jean-Claude have done a lot
>{ of international wrapping in years past; I simply found myself unmoved
>{ except by the sheer size and expanse of the thing.
>
>Guess you have no TV, Ken. C and J-C have been saying over and over
>(in a very friendly, explanatory sort of way, of course) that there's no point
>or purpose to it. Fine by me.
>
>
I almost never watch television and haven't since 1997. We have a TV
but it's primarily a VCR/DVD monitor.
I don't suppose any art has a "purpose" unless you think (as I do) that
utilitarian objects such as hammers and smoking pipes can be art
objects. What point or purpose have the Rubens drawings? I know...for
the Museum they have quite a purpose. People pay ten bucks a throw to
get to see them. Maybe the art of the Gates was the street theater of
people coming to see them. Which made me a willing participant. My
S.O. and I knew before we went into the park that we were there to say
we were there. Which is another way of saying we were part of the
people photographing each other, laughing at cute dogs, and all while
walking near or under the Gates. So perhaps the Gates become a setting
for spectator performance art?
Tutto il mondo e burla.....
Ken
|