| > The problem is the busts probably aren't worth preserving sculpturally (they're competent, but not evocative), and part of the perceived "art value" is being made of a weird material. > I'll use risky terminology here: If a REAL artist wanted a "chocolate bust" - since the bust is purely a visual artifact - he would sculpt or mold it of a suitable material and paint it to look like chocolate. That's what a movie or theme park would use to convey the IDEA of a chocolate bust. this is where many (myself included) will disagree with you. i don't think it's reasonable to discount the artistic value of making something of weird material. like any broad category of choice, that sort of thing won't inherently increase or decrease the worth of the piece. but as other posters have noted, that choice can be an inherently important part of the work's meaning, and it's not always possible to achieve the same thing through more durable means. i think of art as a constant ongoing global conversation. it requires context. it can't be appreciated in a vacuum. sometimes part of the communication is "out of band" for the ostensible medium (think about the way body language or vocal delivery can undercut or augment the meaning of a set of spoken words). i don't believe there's such a thing as an inherently universally meaningful piece of art, or a truly timeless piece of art, and i don't really buy this idea that a "real" artist will do the best work within the proscriptions of the sorts of art that have come before. subversion (and even cheekiness) can be important artistic ideals as worthwhile as any other. as implied above, i think all meaning in art is inherently deeply subjective. i think it's fun to talk about it like it's objective, and to talk shit about the "other side"'s viewpoint (whoever the other side may be in a given argument). but the other replies to your comment illustrate why i don't actually believe in the ideas of "real" art, or "high" art, or whatever. i do believe that some art is inherently ephemeral, and some aspects of some more durable art are inherently ephemeral (e.g. performances of notated or recorded works). i don't believe that it's inherently crazy or unartistic to make something out of bologna that's unpreservable, because preservability isn't an inherent component of all good art. |