You walk through the exhibition.
You see a series of beautiful photographs.
You read the corresponding, somewhat didactic texts.
You engage with the work.
To your surprise, you enjoy the work.
The beauty of the images.
Then you see this:
Pity. I was enjoying the work until then.
As the old adage goes: a picture is worth a 1,000 words.
Didacticism is worth 1: yawn.
I think it is a time to reveil structures lying at the bottom of what it is you want to wear, look at, consume.
I think a valid point is being made here.
Sorry if you’re distracted from your dream.
“distracted from my dream?”
if you think easy and obvious PC points are valid, then good for you.
we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I have to agree with Otto here. Although art can (not: should, but simply: can – art can do other stuff than that, too, although a number of artists and curators with power themselves doesn’t seem to think so) be used to question power structures and attack exploitative politics, it should try and aim for ways that don’t leave the viewer feeling like an ignorant school kid. If you feel like an artwork is pointing an accusatory finger at you, it’s generally extremely annoying – not because of the moral implications, but because of the fact that in doing so it bypasses a unique quality of art: the ability to question issues by way of the imagination.
Totally agree… in my opinion, same goes for the Jimmie Durham installation in the biennial and his previous claims he would boycott it (the biennial).