|
I don't think that art requires its creator to call it art for it to be art. Is that what some of you are saying?
I think these matters of the status of art yea or nay? to say very little of the actual value of art.
Should a serial killer call his acts performance art, what are we to do with that? Should a man who exposes himself on playgrounds consider his acts performance art, what are we to do with that? Should a rapist consider his acts performance art and suggest we call him not a rapist but a "ravishist," what are we to do with that?
Okay, so I'm going to extremes. I guess my point is that I'm not all that concerned about what the artist thinks or calls his or her work. I don't see much value in it. I'm only generally and quite vaguely concerned about the biography of the artist when considering their work. I'm more focused on the work itself and what I can get out of it.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|