Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chadguay
To think about this in a different way (anthropologically, in my case) perhaps it is a matter of Othering (a la Said) different types of art: as in, "we" do proper art - painting, sculpture and whatever else they choose to categorize as art, while 'they' do not do proper art - bonsai, carpentry, ikibana, etc (anything that is not on their list).
This is further compounded by the fact that the Other was originally pointed at the 'Far East' as an exotic, mysterious place (that we need to go and colonize). So, bonsai is an exemplar of a practice of the Other, even if it is practiced to a fine degree in Britain itself. It is art 'they' do, not that 'we' do (or fund in this case).
I'd love to hear what some of those over there think of this?
|
If I am understanding this correctly, a stipulation must exist that only "art forms" consistent with British (or perhaps European) concepts, techniques, materials ect. can be funded. This seems fine to me if the objective of said funding is to promote a greater appreciation of both traditional and evolving
nationalistic notions or ideals about art.
Then again, why didn't they simply just state that this was the case?
If their decree is based solely on a notion of superiority at the "us" vs "them" level, IT REEKS!
For instance, what self respecting British curator would even consider the act of refusing to display a vase from the Ming Dynasty?
Cheers!
_gonzo_