Question 1: I have somewhat of a difficulty understanding how art can all of a sudden have guidelines. I have always thought of art as a form of individual expression, not as a form of encouraging some sort of relationship with the community, not because I don’t agree with communal interaction, but because some art is just supposed to be. I guess my question is why would the goals of the NEA of all sudden encourage public art to be “appropriate to the immediate site” as opposed to “support(ing) individual artists of exceptional talent and demonstrated ability and to provide the public with opportunities to experience the best of American contemporary art” (309)? What rationale would encourage this sudden change in artistic expectations?
Question 2: To define art as a measure of utility seems ridiculous to me. Art is supposed to provoke emotions, reactions, discourse, interest, etc. Is that not enough utility? Why would art all of a sudden be associated with the potential to generate some sort of social value? Do we as a society not value art for what it is but for what it can provide? If so, what is the standard value of art? Is it even measurable? Who measures it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment