Question 1 - In "Cultural Confinement" Smithson states, "artists are expected to fit into fraudelent categories. Some artists imagine they've got a hold on this apparatus, which in fact has got a hold of them. As a result, they end up supporting a cultural prison that is out of their control. Artists themselves are not confined, but their output is (154)". Although to some extent I agree with Smithson that artists are not themselves confined to categories and yet their product is, I would disagree and say that by the nature of an artist work they necessarily must belong to a category. What are we to make of artists and their works if we have no category for which to identify them? Wouldn't this "anti-category" lead to chaos where there would no longer be a base for comparison?
Question 2 - In "What is a Museum?" there is this moment of art and value. Smithson states, "it seems that all art is in some way a questioning of what value is, and it seems that there's a great need for people to attribute value, to find a significant value (48)". If art is to be valueless, or not thought of in terms of value, how then can artists make money and thrive? Furthermore, is value for Smithson strictly economic value, or it is value in a more utilitarian sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment