Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mindcrime
edit: In what sense are they not innovative compared to the artists you mention?
|
Not being a student of the arts in the sense of studying all of the different artists, quasi-artist and artist-wannabes I can only judge by my personal observations. Today the "artist", and I put that in quotes to designate an assumed title or one applied by those who themselves have assumed titles, who took a dump in a mason jar and sold it to a museum in Ohio for several thousand dollars is not, in my opinion an artist, but an individual who has managed to identify a trend and capitalize on it, using the phrase, excuse, or argument that what he did was art, and in doing so sold crap as art and dumbed down the definition of art as the end result of his efforts. Political trends at the time had succeeded in selling the public, or the so called intelegencia on the idea that even junk has credibility, therefore some of the most ridiculous, foul, and ugly crap has been passed off as art.
I believe this is also called kitsch, but many of the art critics, mavens, supporters and devotees of art of today, could not find their collective back-sides sitting on both hands. I really don't care how many degrees an individual may have, or where they are employed or how many articles they have had published in numerous magazines etc., if they are wrong they are wrong. In short; don't pee down my back and try to tell me it is raining.
Their credibility, in my opinion, is perverted by political correctness, personal agenda, and being seduced by those who believe the same. Their ideas are not based on artistic merit but some other issue that drives them, or in this case plays them like a cheap violin.
You have to remember that 500 years ago science believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and flat, both conclusions based on a mis-interpretation of some other source were both incorrect but because they had the power many suffered who sought to challenge this misguided concept.