i stumbled across this remarkably stupid column in the guardian just now and it reminded me of this thread (the association did not work as that sentence made it sound..bear with me)...
Should Banksy be nominated for the Turner prize? | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
the central paragraph that caught my attention is:
now first off, while i like the guardian as a news source, when it comes to art commentary there's a whole lot of stupid in it. sometimes it comes from people who like new music that sounds like old music because that way they don't have to work too hard and apparently asking something of an audience is elitist...
now this.
so the article is obviously about banksy, whose work i quite like, even as his way of playing (while "manipulating" and so "not playing") the gallery system game is irritating because it's so obviously what it is. and it's because he has been one of the latest and highest profile street artists to make this shift into that system, he's attracted stuff like this.
the opening line of the paragraph above: how is that not a non-sequitor?
the distinction between the aesthetic and the social: what the hell that mean?
the assumption that street art has an appeal only because it scares old people--where does that come from?
i'm wondering if this represents more than the musings of some tool and tracks something of a boundary between "high" and "street" art that makes of the musings of this tool something maybe interesting sociologically. what do you think?