Well, isn't that precisely what was being talked about - that a work
can have all the uncomfortable bits knocked off it and be used in ways
totally inimical to its conception? Surrealist key-rings kind of sum
that up for me. xA
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes Sean, I was thinking about mentioning that. That exhibition was one of
> those common examples of arties reinterpreting the past in light of their
> own current interests. There were some very interesting things there but I
> found the tenure of the exhibition as a whole to be trivial and narrow and
> it gave the impression that those who organised it just didn't get
> surrealism, and didn't really want to.
>
> Tim
>
> On 24 Feb 2010, at 12:38, Sean Bonney wrote:
>
>> There was a massive exhibition at the Tate a few
>> years ago, which unfortunately cast them as high-brow pornographers. They
>> did have that going on, but it wasn't exactly what was most interesting
>> about them
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|