Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:52:20 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Amy: What do people buy, music or art? Do millions flock to any
manifestation of visual culture as they do to any one of a number of
music acts that are out there? Do millions buy reproductions of
anything that might be categorized as visual art (leaving aside the
kitschy Christs, which though visual, do not bear the imprint of a
creator) as they do records of any one of a number of musical
manifestations from Green Day to the Three Tenors?
I think that music is bound up in our culture in a way that the visual
arts might once have approximated, but have entirely abandoned. So, I
entirely disagree that visual symbols have more emotional impact then
music. Do you care more about the flag or the Beatles (your favorite
group here?)
This is not just a trivial tangent: though people get het up about the
violence and general anomie of rap music, there is something specific
about the forced sanctity with which art people wrap the artistic act
that I am questioning.
In this regard, it is interesting to hear that this vile flag exhibit
was actually a cultural history exhibit, in which the offending flag
works were intended to illustrate an historical moment. That entirely
changes the vibe for me, and I am glad that whoever posted that
summary of the exhibit offered us the opportunity to make more
informed judgements than Newt was making.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|