From: Guru George (gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 28 1997 - 17:44:32 MDT
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 05:41:33 -0400 (EDT)
MikeRose <mich_ros@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
>> Sometimes art can be quite subtle. One of my favorite "artworks" was when
>> Dan Wolgers made an installation for an exhibition about "The Human
>> Condition" a few years back: he stole two benches from the exhibition hall
>> and sold them. In the ensuing uproar he got quite many swedes to argue
>> about the nature of art, which would never have happened otherwise. The
>> big question is IMHO if his theft was the artwork, or the ensuing
>> controversy which he had clearly anticipated.
>>
>> I wonder if one could extend this form of ideas of provoking thinking to
>> other areas, such as science.
>
>A Warhol original is something touched and manipulated by Mr. A Warhol
>himself. He used to sign Cmabell's Soup tins and give them to friends so
>they could own a Warhol original. A squiggle on a can of tomato soup was
>worth thousands of dollars overnight..... why? .... because the High
>Priests of art, the critics of the time, said that anything that Andy
>touched was gold dust.
>
>Warhol was a magician who created a currency and laughed all the way to
>the bank
>
>I would like to ask, 'what is the differnce between this artist sorcerer
>and any scientist who has a particular 'theory'?'
>
>Surely both are playing the currency game and neither represent any
>objetive truth.
>
In the one case, the 'cognoscenti' collude with Warhol, and the value
could be totally a human creation (although some of the cognoscenti
might claim to see something objectively valuable, some 'statement'
perhaps, in Warhol's magic trick); in the other case, nature 'colludes
with the scientists - or rather, it either colludes or it doesn't.
Guru George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:24 MST