3 ms·
Are you sure you aren't attempting to judge originality with the benefit of hindsight? The fact that these works have been mindlessly copied countless times sin
by dagw 3y ago
Are you sure you aren't attempting to judge originality with the benefit of hindsight? The fact that these works have been mindlessly copied countless times since they were first conceived and now appear trite and simplistic, doesn't make the original concept any less original.
As to the value and validity of the opinion of critics and art audience, surely the most import opinion about just about anything is the opinion of the intended audience.
- fodkodrasz 3y agoThe trick was original once. I don't know if that first was the blank canvas or the silent music track, but every other iteration is just a copy. Regarding the fulfilment of expectation of the intended audience: I agree that it is an important aspect, but it will not make art good, merely makes it marketable. I have a feeling that museums are only serving as means of advertisements, to keep the perceived brand value of these items (and people) high. Criticising it is just as dangerous for this, as remote work is for the real-estate bubble. Criticists are stakeholders in this game, as well as the authors and the buyers. Their livelihood depends on the public agreeing to, or at least accepting the valuation of these items. I think the real art in (post)modern art is this control of the public opinion, a large illusionistic trick. To me it seems similar to the "crypto" scam, so NFTs were kind of a perfect post-modern works of art! (when they were novel)