From: illovich (illovich@home.com)
Date: 02/25/02-07:20:02 AM Z
At 8:08 AM -0500 2/25/02, illovich wrote:
>No wonder that there's "such little support of artists in this world" when
>poseurs such as Creed pass off uninspired crap as art and are handsomely
>rewarded for it. The general public (being much smarter than the art world
>cognoscenti) consider it a joke, as evidenced by Barry's humor column.
My criticism of this entire thread, starting with Mr. Barry, is that
it focuses around critique of an artwork that as yet no one has
confessed to actually seeing. I apologize if I take Mr. Barry's
generally anti-intellectual writing with a grain of salt, but given
that a) I've never read him critique art before and b) he seems to
have not seen the piece of work either, I can't really take his word
for it. at all.
Frankly his article seems more to do with poking fun at "funny
foreigners" and their fancy book learning and art degrees than it
does with serious criticism of the established gallery and museum
system.
There are much better examples of that.
At 8:57 AM -0800 2/22/02, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>"Ever try to get your work in a museum Christopher? If you have, then you
>would understand that curators do wield power."
Every closed community has it's gatekeepers. Ever try to get a Ph.D?
Ever try to book your garage band at Madison Square Garden? Ever try
to run for public office? I agree that often the walls seem high, but
in general the real problem (IMHO) with the established system of art
patronage is that it still hasn't evolved much from the court system,
and depends entirely too much on the whims an tastes of an obscure
and out of touch plutocracy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST