People gripe about funding for the arts. It’s all touchy-feely, hippie crap, am I
right? And by that I mean, you think money
spent on the arts is like tossing cash into the crapper, for as much good as it offers
the world at large.
Well, it’s harder for me to convince you of the fallacy of
that argument when a recent city-wide all night arts festival offered the
following “pieces”:
“An artist/poet
silently wanders the financial district completely covered in Velcro-like
hooked burdock seedpods accompanied by two assistants and a docent.”
“Two driverless luxury
sedans circle each other in an endless figure eight, teetering on the verge of
collision but never quite doing so.”
“Participants spin a
wheel of fortune to select questions that are put to a 12-foot tall child
oracle who offers answers privately over headphones. These relatively benign proceedings are made
menacing by the vengeful spirit of an even larger inflatable hanging spider
exploring the night as the locus of imaginary fears.”
“A photography
professor hoists personal messages about emotional states up a flagpole.”
“Celebrate Toronto’s squirrel
population with knitted and felted portraits.”
“Wearing a soft
sculpture made of stuffed toys, an artist wanders the area hugging passersby.”
“A 12-hour-long
sentence made of 12,000 proverbs from around the world is read from the church
pulpit.”
Don’t get me wrong. The
existence of this art is not my issue. Calling
it art isn’t even my issue. It’s whether
or not I, as a taxpayer, paid for any of the above. Do I know for a fact that any of the above received
any manner of public funding? I do
not. Who is to be the judge of what is
art and what is not, and thereby what is “worth” being funded – me? I don’t really think so. So what am I saying is the solution?
Well, art doesn't have to have a solution, does it? Art can simply be about expressing or eliciting an emotional state or reaction. It can be successful by simply instigating the discussion. So consider this post my art *.
Well, art doesn't have to have a solution, does it? Art can simply be about expressing or eliciting an emotional state or reaction. It can be successful by simply instigating the discussion. So consider this post my art *.
[* No taxpayer was harmed – or fleeced – in the creation or execution of this art.]
Comments