Karen Sullivan on wed 25 oct 00
Interesting ideas, and I would perhaps continue the thread wondering a few
things...
What needs/motivations drive one towards acquiring fame?
It would seem there would be considerable time and effort invested in the
venture of promoting oneself.
Do famous artists strive for the stature of notoriety as validation of their
work, or was there a considerable effort to promote the work. Does the work
make a worthy contribution to the dialogue of art, contribution to
technology, contribute innovative ideas. Who decides? Gallery directors,
people who write history books?
When asked what constituted good work, Paul Soldner used to say, work that
was memorable. Also rather random, as the choice is based on the aesthetic
viewpoint of the viewer making the judgement. Did he mean one jaded from
seeing too much... How well informed was the viewer? Too difficult a
question to state what good work is. But sometimes it is also just
blatantly obvious the work is outstanding.
I would also say that if the goal of art is to be innovative, then, if it
doesn't look like art, it probably is. Think about that one.
It seems the question also asks about the nature of fame. Is Warhol anywhere
nearby?
Does this spin the discussion off into another deep hole?
bamboo, karen
| |
|
