canundrum In reply to cloistering [2009-02-26 19:36:50 +0000 UTC]

yea he was intriguing because of his mind and ideas, his actual works kind of secondary. at least to me. the reasoning that everyone's an artist doesn't come through as revolutionary today as it must have done back in the day, but the statement still holds an important truth.
my guess is he was kind of eccentric and full of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cloistering In reply to canundrum [2009-02-26 20:03:03 +0000 UTC]

Yes, even he couldn't have predicted the way in which this statement would materialize and the enormous proliferation of 'Art' computer aided. Of course in ancient times art in some form was simply part of everyday life as it has become again today.
Beuys was revolutionary in breaking through the elitism prevalent at the time.
He certainly was eccentric and full of it as well yet he rightly exerted great influence on the youth of his time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

canundrum In reply to cloistering [2009-02-27 07:14:53 +0000 UTC]

yes, maybe he did break through the elitism, sadly though it wasn't broken down. what you say about ancient times i also believe, and that it is the rightful place for art; that it is not in essence made for any kind of piedestal (even though Dali and the like would most certainly object to that...)
that single, and simple, statement is maybe the most important tool for revealing and disarming the power of social classes within the arts (-"movement"). for example, Mona Lisa is obviously exceptionally well made and mysteriously beautiful, but it is definitly not anymore important, or valuable, than Duchamps urinoar piece.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0