-A review of Allan Kaprow's "Art Which Can't be Art" by Xander Kent
Kaprow argues in his article that the act of brushing one's teeth, under examination could be considered art. All the minute processes that go into oral hygiene, if put in the appropriate context (ie: a museum or an art gallery), could be considered art.
This calls into question what can be and what can't be art. Kaprow recognizes the paradox of the ordinary becoming aesthetically labeled as art. In everyday life, the ordinary is just that: ordinary. But once it is contemplated, examined, scrutinized, and analyzed, it can be put on display and called art.
In all honesty, I have a problem with this. I really don't believe that objects or actions such as soup cans, urinals, or brushing one's teeth is art. I don't pretend to be an authorized art critic, and I understand the idea behind putting said objects and actions under an aesthetic eye, but I just don't see it as art.
In all reality though, you don't have to be Van Gough or Picasso to be an artist. But I think it takes more making people think "Is this art?" when they see a stack of boxes in a museum or when they watch themselves brush their teeth.
Comments (1)
Nice theme modification!
I think Kaprow's position would be something along the lines of: "hey, if this doesn't work for you, that's perfectly fine, we all have to find our own sources of meaning."
Artists like Kaprow (and Duchamp, and Debord, etc) would like to see the end of art - art totally dissolved into life, so that we naturally conduct our lives and address issues in an artistic way. I've often thought it would be good if all subjects were taught in an artisitic manner, and there were no art departments per se.
Posted by Andy Cox | September 10, 2007 11:07 PM
Posted on September 10, 2007 23:07