Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DelayedReaction
<Threadjack>If guns are banned, then only art thieves will have guns!</Threadjack>
I have to disagree with ART. We would lose a significant connection with our past if paintings were destroyed upon the death of the artist, or modern painters were allowed to "update" older works with spray paint. Although the art world in general confounds me (it seems like nearly anything can be declared significant or artistic), I believe it has value. To allow temporary modern ideas to permanentaly scar or destroy a masterpiece that has stood the test of time reduces that value significantly.
Mr. Shafrazi is well within his right to see the painting in some kind of "dynamic raw state," but much of the populace would prefer the original work not be modified to suit the whims of an individual. Masterpieces are property of humanity as a whole, and should be preserved as such.
|
This issue is not really with the piece of art itself but with those who contexualize the work. Art historians, et al. make great efforts to control how we approach a work of art, frequently supressing opposing views. When this occurs a piece of art is rendered sterile and neutered (spayed?)...
Art should be a flow between the audience, the text, and to some extent the artist. To me, art ceases to be the artist's when he or she releases it into the world... at that point, the meaning of the work is strictly in the eye (and more importantly experience) of the beholder.