Like Phillipe, I did not like this article. I did not appreciate the way the author made experimental artists so matter-of-fact. For some reason the way she (he?) spelled everything out really rubbed me the wrong way. I think that by defining experimental artists, it went against my concept of an experimental artist, which is strange because everything she said was mainly my concept of one.
However, I did appreciate the idea of the experimental artist as being compelled to “live” art in uncertainty. Although I would hate to live in uncertainty all of the time, I think it would be fun to court with it occasionally, which is what some non-experimental artists do. Perhaps that is what frustrated me most about this chapter; the author rarely acknowledged the fact that “art artists” also experiment with their art in new ways. When she does mention this happening, she stigmatizes traditional artists, specifically the way they practice their art, by making them analogous to druggies and criminals going straight and monks turning away from worldliness. Maybe I am offended because I come from a very traditional background and have not broken tradition yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment