Which do you think Kevin Harman's piece of performance art, which involved him putting a pole through the window of a UK gallery, is? You can watch video at the link above. It's less dramatic than it sounds, due to the artist's decision to use a scaffolding pole rather than a brick and the window's thickness and presumably shatterproof glass, but it does raise interesting issues. Harman paid for the window in advance, which lends some credence to his argument, but it also doesn't seem that the gallery knew about it ahead of time. Do we have to choose? Don't you take the risk that you'll be charged for an act like this just as if you'd taken your clothes off in public or something comparable? Isn't the risk and transgression part of the art? Does art have to be art only, not overlapping with other categories of human behavior? Philosophical thoughts for your weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment