'Expansion' is a kind of a loaded term. It can be used in both positive and negative connotations. It's primarily good because it can bring several ideas to the table so growth and developement can occur and the general public can be exposed to worldly thoughts and ideas. But it can also be bad in the sense that it can make art too broad. For the most part, if people say that their work is art, then I would agree, but sometimes I look at a piece and think that it borders the realms of philosophy a little to much, or that it is so underdeveloped that it hasn't quite reached the realm of art, or it's to simple or unjustified. When I think of expanding, I think hot air in a balloon, or I'll associate it with a violent explosion.
What if art expanded so much that everyone was doing it, and the art world is bad enough about drawing inspiration to readily from previous work. Sherrie Levine illustrates this the best - Everything is a copy of a copy. It depresses me that my ideas have already been thought or expressed, hundreds of times over. And if everything is constantly being reworked or counterfeited, then when is there ever going to be room for a genuine idea to surface out of all of the clones?
By introducing nonart experiences into our sphere of art, aren't we dissolving what makes artistic expression so profound?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment