3 ms·
An interesting introduction but the article unfortunately falls short without really answering its title question. IMO it could have continued to discussing th
by binarymax 10y ago
An interesting introduction but the article unfortunately falls short without really answering its title question. IMO it could have continued to discussing the same dilemma faced by most conceptual art. Also surprising there is not a single mention of the contemporary Andy Goldsworthy [0], who has done a great deal to promote environmental art.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Goldsworthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Goldsworthy
- theoh 10y agoIs there really an interesting question here, though? The art world has for years had no difficulty trading in immaterial works of art, or, for example the right to exhibit a performance. In the case of something simple that anyone could reproduce, like a very simple performed gesture, what actually gets sold is the right to assert that a given performance is actually an authentic, canonical instance of the work. I've never encountered any interesting nuances or complexity when it comes to the sale of conceptual work. It is just very straightforward.