i love this so much i dont know where to start
- the comedy itself
- the commentary on ‘what is art’
- further on what is art: the viewers are interpreting this as art, but the intention of the “artist” was not actually art, so is it art or not? who gets to decide, the viewers or the creator?
- the act of placing the glasses and watching the response (and the response itself being that the viewers treated the glasses as art) as performance art
like is this a critique of postmodernism? does the critique betray itself since (one could argue) the viewers interpreting the glasses as art makes them art? or is that so ridiculous that it doesn’t matter? i could go onThe intention of the “artist” was not actually art, but… their intention was to create a specific image for public display in order to evoke a reaction from an audience, and then to create an image of that in order to evoke a different reaction from a second audience.
I think they accidentally arted. Twice.
“I think they accidentally arted. Twice.”
Love!YEP 100% ARTED TWICE
Honest to god, when I was at MoMA a few years ago I had a problem a few times where I’d walk into a room and see, like, a bench, or in one case a random pile of lumber, and think “I don’t know if I should sit on this or if it’s art,” or “Is this room under construction or is this meant to be some kind of post-modern commentary on deconstructionism?”
I have two fucking liberal arts degrees and a certificate in museum studies, and I honestly had a hard time telling, sometimes, what was intended to be viewed as art and what was not. The best way to be sure was to look for the little sign with the artist’s name and the title of the piece, and assume that if the printed-out sign on the wall didn’t have one it was probably not intended as art. That’s how post-modern shit gets sometimes. And then someone goes and does this, and the responses are so… I don’t even know whether to bang my head on the wall or be thrilled by the extent to which artistic analysis can be taken.