1: Would you consider these events and performances, all or in part, artistic? Is there a line that should be drawn in considering these creative and/or performance pieces? Elaborate thoroughly.*
2a: If you have been part of an event before that would be considered part of the Disruptive Realist category, please explain your experience and consideration on whether or not it was a creative endeavor.
2b: If you haven’t been involved with an event like those presented, describe the ideal event you think you would enjoy participating in and why You can either describe an event you have heard of or one of your own creation.
And here is a sample of the responses:
"If someone does something, and considers it at least partly meaningful and calls it art, then why not accept it as art?"
"I would also be interested in cheap, interactive installations like hanging a bunch of swings form select trees, or placing beds in arbitrary locations and then napping on them. Also I love naps."
"Disruptive art is not exactly artistic when its main purpose is to simple have fun."
"The closest thing I have come to disruptive realism is the organic canvas at Bard. It was definitely a creative endeavor for the photographer, the performers and the painters. It was really cool to add paint to someone in conjunction with their pose and what other people had done."
"I can't think of a more appropriate way for Bard students to show school spirit / promote campus unity."
"I would consider these events artistic. They are original, provocative, beautiful or jolting, all aspects often associated with art. Each event is planned, designed, crafted in order to provide a certain effect, and more significantly, a specific effect on a particular audience."
"Art is often a question of whether or not art is for the person or the public, but these [events] seem to fall into all of the above."
"My friends created Humans vs Zombies, which is played all over the country, and I participated twice. I think it was creative because you are constantly playing the game and people watch. You have to change the way you do everything. You become the game."
"For something to be considered 'artistic', intention must be established (or demonstrable), as an occurrence lacking intention falls under the same category as 'mundanity'. This seems to a definition of 'artisticness' that necessitates the concerted intention to 'be artistic' or 'create something artistic', but such a definition seems insufficient if we are to apply it to what we also intuitively understand as the interpretative role of art: Is it possible to have an intention to artistically discuss intention, or does this become too recursive to be meaningful?"
Food for thought, I guess. If you are hungry for more, go ahead and come to dinner on Thursdays in 7pm!
I spy a Matt Hughes comment.
ReplyDelete