Nathan
Technique, the ability to produce, is certainly important in assessing whether
art is worth travelling to see; I'm glad that he has that. But the instinct to
shock is not one I recognise as a pre-requisite in an artist. But then I see
no reason to watch violent films . . .
I don't visit galleries or museums very often, but in the Victoria and Albert I
seem to remember that photography was explicitly forbidden. Perhaps it is
because of the age of some of the exhibits and the damage that light will
cause, not a problem with modern sculpture, I imagine.
Chris
On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:00, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> One person's art is another person's trash, of course. But in this case the
> guy clearly has the technique, something which is often lacking in modern
> art, and he chooses to put it to use to depict things which, as I warned,
> will clearly offend and disgust some viewers.
>
> As for photography, this particular gallery generally allows photography of
> all its exhibits, regardless of whether they are controversial or not.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|