Quote:
|
“Something’s being a work of art doesn’t excuse you from moral considerations,” says critic Arthur Danto. “The guy who dumps ink into one of Damien Hirst’s lambs and turns it black—that’s property damage even if it’s a performance. You can murder someone and call it a work of art, but you are still a murderer. Morality trumps esthetics. That’s my view.”
|
This says it all for me.
I'm not sure if this is judgmental, but I can't help but wonder if some of these over-the-top works are art, or just a way to make a statement. Orators can speak their mind and aren't considered artists, per se. Perhaps some of these supposed artists don't have the words to write a book (an art) or create something to express what they want to get across. So they try to make it fit under
performance art.
The antics in the article? Political statements. Or cries for attention, depending on the
artiste. That's how I see it.
Or at least that's how I think I see it. Change my mind if you disagree.