Tuesday, December 10, 2013
most people who react positively (=they "like") conceptual art are bored people. They need something new to jolt them for a second out of their soup. How often can you get surprised by something you already saw or heard? Unless ur'e alzheimered, just the first time. Im fine if you want to call that art. You can even call your bed art. That's what happens when people dont get art educated: art gets down to their level, to sell, instead of lifting up the people to the level of the very few illuminated artists. People get even irritated to hear they are at "a level" but that's how it is with everything: your level of appreciating art can be one and your level or understanding android apps is another. I solely blame education (or the lack thereof) for throwing people into the world with the illusion that they can function, communicate and enjoy life. Art is a source of spiritual illumination. It doesnt preach, it has no miracles or saviors. But it makes your life better. That quality of art requires some education, which the masses did not receive. Populus, vulgus, oi polloi, Margaret Thatcher's voters, we are all at some level, a lump of dough.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
I just realized yesterday (I know...) that what what some consider sexual or pornographic/provocative, I don't. Having a conversation with some people/clients, it became clear that to them the presence of a cock in a statue, drawing or painting, is at least sexual, if not provocative (when erected). OK, if the public needs another 2000 years of covered cocks, so be it. To me looking at a cock in a photo, painting, etc, is NOT related to sex, as looking at a nose is not related to the sense of smell, as watching a hand or foot is not related to holding a phone or wearing a shoe. Of course we use those body parts for various activities (including peeing, not just fucking) but taken out of that particular context, (to me) it's part of a human being. It's unnatural to see a statue of a nude male with a leaf covering his genitals. At least my genitals are not covered by any leaf when Im naked. And when Im naked I dont always have sex or am engaged in any "porn" activity. This was where I went wrong in my thinking. Some people get turned on by seeing a female nipple. Some dont. That's why I thought showing a female nipple in a nude painting of a woman would be the same way as showing a cock in a drawing. I wonder what it takes for some people to dissociate from some life activities and uses of the body parts, if art doesnt help them do that.