Jim Murphy on tue 15 apr 03
on 4/15/03 2:29 PM, Jocelyn McAuley at jocie@WORLDDOMINATION.NET wrote:
> I disagree heavily with mel, and feel disappointed that this discussion is
> dividing the issues at hand so bipolarly:
> young vs old
> smut vs pure
> etc etc
Jocelyn,
I'll say right upfront, no offense intended here by me. I, personnally,
don't believe this issue is or should be centered on the devisive - young vs
old, smut vs pure, etc. Let me explain.
If I were an artist and/or marketer (gallery/museum director) of the art in
question, my method of getting attention would be based not on presenting
the art's beautiful colors , textures, feel, depth, etc., but rather, I
would want to break the viewers' "focus" by associating the work with
"freedom of speech", "freedom of expression", etc.
I would WANT to create controversy. I would try to associate the work with
that which had been looked down upon in the past. I would actually WANT
people to take devisive stands (young vs old, etc.). That way, the art would
play off people's emotions and sensitivities to create more notoriety.
I would want to manipulate. That way, people won't focus on the art's
beauty, color, etc., they'll argue/debate freedom of expression instead.
Maybe, that's some of what is happening. It's simply a marketing technique -
that's all.
I'm not saying these artists/marketeers or the people who choose to follow
along are "bad" at all. That's what is great about America - all our
freedoms.
But remember, we all already have these freedoms. Do you need to experience
this art first in order to "realize" you already have these freedoms
(speech, expression) ? If so, why ? How long does one need to be "attached"
to this art ?
There is a place for all types of art - everywhere - in the largest
galleries and museums as well as the smallest.
The issue for me is the "level of attention given", or rather, why some of
this art gets the "center of attention". That is the issue - why the center
of attention ?
Best wishes,
Jim Murphy
Cat Yassin on wed 16 apr 03
In a message dated 4/15/2003 10:06:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
nomocor@ATTBI.COM writes:
> Jim Murphy writes: I would WANT to create controversy. I would try to
> associate the work with that which had been looked down upon in the past. I
> would actually WANT people to take devisive stands (young vs old, etc.).
> That way, the art would
> play off people's emotions and sensitivities to create more notoriety.
>
> I would want to manipulate. That way, people won't focus on the art's
> beauty, color, etc., they'll argue/debate freedom of expression instead.
> Maybe, that's some of what is happening. It's simply a marketing technique
> -
> that's all.
Ok.. Then perhaps you are talking about Politics, and not "Art". Because I
believe there is a difference. BTW, since when is focusing on the "art's
beauty, color, etc." not a good thing? This truly is a sign of the times...
-Cat Yassin
Jim Murphy on wed 16 apr 03
Cat,
I was only playing the "Devil's Advocate". I, personally, would never do
such a thing.
Focusing on the art's beauty, color, etc. IS the good thing.
Jim Murphy
on 4/16/03 10:31 AM, Cat Yassin at CatBY@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>> Jim Murphy writes: I would WANT to create controversy. I would try to
>> associate the work with that which had been looked down upon in the past. I
>> would actually WANT people to take devisive stands (young vs old, etc.).
>> That way, the art would
>> play off people's emotions and sensitivities to create more notoriety.
>>
>> I would want to manipulate. That way, people won't focus on the art's
>> beauty, color, etc., they'll argue/debate freedom of expression instead.
>> Maybe, that's some of what is happening. It's simply a marketing technique
>> -
>> that's all.
>
> Ok.. Then perhaps you are talking about Politics, and not "Art". Because I
> believe there is a difference. BTW, since when is focusing on the "art's
> beauty, color, etc." not a good thing? This truly is a sign of the times...
> -Cat Yassin
| |
|
