Since I accidentally locked myself out of the room and my mom and Brenda have gone to greet my other aunt and cousin who are arriving today, I decided to write that entry on decaying art I meant to.
Seeing the statues in the British museum, I sensed some irony in their decay. After all, didn't the Greeks have an overarching belief that art is eternal? I believe that age has given them character, but has the defacement that some, or even most, of them have faced really made them more beautiful? Or would we gasp even more in awe at how the artist meant his work to be portrayed?
Like a source of radiation, these works have inspired hundreds of thousands of images and copies, but none are as good as the original.
Should art realize its decay and embrace it? Create slight faults so that pieces come off in a certain order? Plant the plants that will eventually engulf the piece?
I know there are certain schools of thought which say yes. For me, it's just an interesting ideology to think about. Though I believe if we as a culture simply stopped attempting to reach for the eternal in some way it would destroy an essential part of the soul.
PS Marian Churland's "Beast", I wants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think art can be nice after decay and erosion and whatever, but I imagine I'd prefer my own art to stay as it is throughout time. As I understand it, the original sculptures of Greece and Rome were colored with paint. I've often wondered what those slightly creepy white statues would look like with color.
I agree that I would want a lot of my art to stay that way throughout time. The problem is that that's not realistic; what do we do about that?
Post a Comment