> 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.
M.
________________________________________________
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
For we are such stuff that dreams are made of.
____________ MikeRose@journalist.com ___________