One thing I still recall learning in art school was the difference between the word “modern” and the word “contemporary” when referring to art. I thought maybe the author was confusing the two here but that wouldn’t make any sense either.
Well, the important thing is that everyone’s going to get to write a couple of wordy papers for some scholarly journals and that a few dozen students might get a thesis out of it, amirite?
it seems to me that the art world would be just fine with this revelation, because it only adds to the importance and cachet of the work. it’s everyone ELSE who will make a big deal about it.
Well, it’s very much similar to how, ya know, Columbus discovered America, and countless other similar stories. To quote Click and Clack: bohhhguss!
Well, that’s debatable, but that’s the fun of postmodernism. Or is that post-modernism? Or is that post modernism? Or is that pomo? Or is that just an overly stretched out dance garment?
As an actual art historian and art critic with an actual PhD in aesthetics, I can say with absolute pompousness, that you are correct.
Yes, god forbid we understand the history of art. HUGE waste of time. Let’s give all the money to wall street, since those guys NEVER waste it. /s
These days “Modern” and “Contemporary” are roughly broken down into pre- and post-WWII.
As chance would have it just last week I was confronted with a urinal that I first mistook for a non-functional art installation. Turns out you really were allowed to pee in it, so I did. I didn’t linger though.
“Excuse me sir but, that does not look good and I should know.”
Behold I have an eye! or a finely crafted hand ax.
Was it one of Phillips Starck’s efforts?
Or maybe it was his wall for two at the royalton hotel? (in the words of one commenter, “don’t wear shoes you like”…)
He keeps trying, but some things don’t really need a contemporary industrial design makeover.
On top of the Peninsula Hotel in Hong Kong the view is spectacular at night. It’s almost as if you are peeing off of the side of the building.
The rest of the bar is a great example of his design whimsy.
The entire valuation of art is simply a scam long perpetrated by the moneyed class to launder money.
So, basically she was reincarnated as Lena Lovich?
I’ve been to the royalton in NYC and it is impressive. I’ll admit that I am predisposed to dislike Starck on account of this abomination:
Is that a mechanical bird with wheels? Or a harbor seal pushing tires for some fly-by-night-circus?
Could be the harbor seal I guess. I’ve always thought it was a mobile urinal.
Yeah, I remember this ‘news’ making the rounds a couple of years back, specifically because I amended my curriculum to include it. It’s not a new discovery.
The fact that the piece of art was conceived by a woman could add meaning to the fact that the urinal is on its side. Was she proposing overturning the rules dictated by men? Was she trying to adapt contraptions designed by and for men so they could also be accessible to women? A lot more intriguing and perhaps less surrealistic or dadaistic.