From: Christopher Lovenguth (zantzant@hotmail.com)
Date: 10/07/02-02:03:41 PM Z
So doing what some might see as bad art (subjective) is equivalent to
committing a crime? Wow. Who gets to make this choice of what is bad art?
Who's moral gets indoctrinated? Look at the words you used: "condemn",
"crap", "worthless". Why is it worthless? Why (besides that it literally is)
is it crap?
The fact that people have these discussions validates the need for work like
this. If it wasn't striking at something, no one would pay any mind. I think
it's hilarious that this guy, knowing his own value in the art community and
seeing how utterly worthless and ridicules that notion actually is, passed
his own crap off as art. That's the point (and a good one I might add since
it seems to bother some people).
>From: Chunin Martinez <chunin@cimphoto.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: "sophisticated art snot"
>Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:41:54 -0400
>
>Letting people do this kind of crap and don't condem it also hurts you, the
>artist. It is the same crap as corrupt police departments letting bad cops
>go free by not investigating or doing cover ups in order to not hurt the
>departments image or confidence or morale. It is true that there must be
>freedom to perform art but I believe that most of us agree that this
>example
>in particular is worthless as art. People don't use this article to
>validate the misconception of contemporary art any more that others use it
>to validate crap like this just for the sake of protecting the image of
>contemporary art.
>
>Chunin
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST