Ender100@aol.com
Date: 10/07/02-11:44:01 AM Z
Sandy,
Very well said. Say, would you be interested in going halves on a case of
Ball canning jars?
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 10/7/02 12:50:11 PM, sanking@CLEMSON.EDU writes:
<< Chris,
If Dave Berry were an art critic your comments might have some point.
He is not and they don't, at least in my opinion. The man is neither
an artist nor art critic. He is a satirist who makes his money
poking fun at our public and private habits, and by bringing them
into ridicule for their ignorance, exaggerations and pomposity.
Assuming that his story is true, i.e. that some enterprising artist
did in fact market his own canned excrement as Vision, and that some
museums indeed have purchased such for their collections, is this
activity in and for itself not a parody of art. And that which
parodies does not ask to be defended as sacrosanct.
To respond to his piece as a serious work on the aesthetics of art is
simply ridiculous. No one on the list is defending his argument
because there really is no argument to defend. His purpose was to
make us laugh, not to show either understanding or acceptance of
modern art or modern artists.
I read the piece and found it amusing. Not once did I seriously think
that it was in any way a serious commentary on modern art or on
contemporary artists.
Sandy King >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST