If irrelevant art – is its relevancy an interesting question?
Who is the It?
Art, no?
Is this question something to do with this article about art’s growing importance for culture?
This is a very conservative view of art, no?
How?
From the practices it considers’ “art” through to the idea of “good old days” when society was expressed through artists – visual stuff makers – controlled by patrons. Which begs the question that, I think begets conservative minds – how can it be that by being in power, you are both able to keep your own relatively small class’s privileges – while at the same time claim to be the natural expression of the rest of society?
Err..How does this link with art?
Actually, I think the article has a bit of a point regarding the expression of art and relevancy – is it not some sort of a link?
A visual link?
A sensational link perhaps?
As in physical rather than mental?
As in some link we can all – as a social body – refer to?
As an expression that links us all?
As a bonding?
Like, when expressions of a certain kind, like sensation oriented sensations are no longer linking, no longer bind the bound among people – they become irrelevant?
Hold on.. However, perhaps that bind bounding Function is just done in other means nowadays?
Like games?
Like TV?
Like youtube?
Like social media?
So then.. What is happening with the sensations?
With how sensations are being cultivated?
How sensations are being imagined?
Why being? Why do imagine individual sensations in such a totalitarian way?
Totalitarian or totalism?
So, is art relevant?
Perhaps that is the thing, maybe art should Not be relevant?
HUH??!!!
Say art doesn’t express stuff?
Doesn’t express the sensations of a given power/patron’s view of how culture should be?
That art doesn’t express some view of anyone’s?
That art has nada todo with expression?
Is art’s expression not the link?
What is the link?
What is the expression?
What if the link is a server?
What if the expressed link is stuff like http protocol?
In the sense that these are the social linking bondages?
In the sense that such technologies are relevant for social bodies as a whole?
Well.. Does it not free the ability to imagine, to evolve ways for wondering which free us from the question of relevancy?
Like.. err.. art for art’s sake? 😉
Could be.. However, is it Art for art’s sake in the framework of “expression”?
Like: I the patron rather fancy to be seen as a sophisticated being, one that can understand the language of colours and composition which is linking our basic visual experiences?
Visual sensations maybe?
How can you infer all that about people? Patrons are people too!
Does it sound all too sarcastic?
All too wide a brash?
More of a wide brushing brash?
A brushing brush?
Even as a question?
Are you saying all these are genuine questions?
What’s a dis-ingenious question?
A question that presuppose an answer?
Like these 2? 😉
How about questions that might be interesting?
Interesting or relevant?
Say interesting, as the question’s relevancy is yet to be imagined?
But all these questions were regarding a particular topic, no?
Do we really know whether the relevancy of technology replaced the relevancy of art, or is this a link of some ignorance?
One reply on “relevance of irrelevant art?”
relevance of irrelevant art? http://itchy.5p.lt/relevance-of-irrelevant-art/