after reading the introduction of Conversational Pieces i struggled to understand the importance of the Kester's text. Maybe i misunderstood it because i read it late at night but it strikes me that the paper is more concerned about the ever growing boundaries of art and not the subjects of the works it is critiquing. What i mean by this is the works used as examples are about making a change to specific areas within the community eg. the work evolving Zurich's sex workers. This work was deemed successful as there was a concrete response. the girls were then provided with a shelter that offered them protection comfort, safety etc. so why does it even come into question that this requires a label. was it art that created this or public intervention or what ever. the fact is they did what they set out to do, so in my opinion that holds more weight then whether or not it is art.
Good for art for making a difference, and good for us that we felt it necessary to tell everyone about it...
Luke Turner
August 29, 2010 10:35 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment