AN INTERVIEW WITH MATTHEW COLLINGS
These artists choose such subject matter to have convers with their art followers, and the roles their work fulfill are the mostly the people who live on the edge. The meaning of his work change over time, to whatever audience is capture. I do think should public funds should go toward paying for art that is offensive to some but if we have a wide audience looking for that type of art and it set the trend, then yes we should be paying for the art to be displayed. (and if it who decides what is offensive or not?) That’s a question of who finds it offensive or not.
"When I’m being extreme, I’m capable of thinking that frankly the whole art scene is made up of a bunch of idiots. And I have no desire to get millions of ordinary people to queue up to look at that stuff. Why should they? It’s got nothing much to do with them. To suddenly expect it to be popular is asking the impossible. There really is very little in it for a mass audience and I think this mass audience it’s suddenly now got, knows that really. And they’re not really interested; they’re just along for the ride, for the nonsense. The mandarin people in charge of the Turner Prize, and the media people at Channel 4, and middle-class people who run the art columns on the broadsheets, all assume ordinary people must have this stuff explained to them -- but the motivations for doing that are completely bullshit."
This is a great quote you found by Collings, I wonder if you could work it back into your response and use it to help prove your ideas.
ReplyDelete