The museum is constantly being reverberated as a place of clashing purposes. Within this context a soci-economic matter evolves, creating the question of whether it would be best to represent art as a form of public works or just leave it in the museums for a select group of people to witness? Art has adopted this sense of worth based upon monetary value, but this then can describe the art as adopting utility. Smithson states that art should NOT have utility, as that would defeat the purpose of the art in the first place. My question revolves around the fact that if the art adopts utility and prestige, then is it really art? For only a select few can admire its worth.
Museums have also been criticized at attempting to combine life and death. The museum itself would be the morbid environment while the art itself would be the more lively aspect. Combining these two is as Kaprow states "are a canned life" or "like making love in the cemetery". I personally disagree with this statement as the museums provide a contrast between two very opposite subjects, the museum and the art and makes that idea art itself. Art is intended to be odd and disturbing (as Smithson stated), thus if this is the case shouldn't a completely odd relationship between the art and the museum itself be a figure of artwork?
No comments:
Post a Comment