5 ms·

The medium an artist chooses may be a strong indicator of their intention for the piece's longevity.

• vacri 9y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. For something like Fox Games, the use of bread rather than a permanent material is incidental. But for a bust made of chocolate or an art piece where meat is nailed to a wall, the impermanent material is clearly part of the piece. I remember when a 'golden age' (modern/pop art) display from MoMA came to my town. A lot of important pieces where there, but everything was tired and fading with age. Most notably was an art piece that was mounted on the wall, a metal thing with dangly bits, that the museum had put 'don't touch' around. But in the informational blurb, the artist intended the piece to be touched and physically spun by the viewer. I always wondered if the artist would have preferred the piece to be worn out and destroyed through interaction with the public, or frozen in time and put on static display forever (which seems opposite to the original intent).
  • glitcher 9y ago
    This really reminds me of the debate over who does art belong to once it's released out into the world? On the one hand, it makes complete sense that the creator of the artwork should have the final say in how it is interacted with by viewers, and whether or not it should be preserved. But on the other hand, when George Lucas says I'm not allowed to purchase the original non-digitally-enhanced version of the first Star Wars movie so dear to my childhood memories it really pisses me off!