Jason

I thought I might post my 412 Audio Hypermedia in case anyone wants to play with it. I need to figure out how I can embed it next.

A very potent excerpt indeed, this article does not stray one bit from its focus of Consumerism and Capitalism. I heartily agree with a large amount of the positions taken on Publicity and the media. I especially liked the connection that is made with our working conditions and how the passive worker becomes the active consumer, daydreaming about the future and what he or she will want. The only thing I do disagree with, or I should say seems overlooked, is the double edged sword of Capitalism. Take the oil painters, for example, of which a portion of the text is focused. Berger states that the publicity of an oil painting presents wealth and culture, as well as the purchase of it denotes an item of value and luxury, thus is an example of Capitalism, defining what is desired and what something is worth. I agree with this but what Berger does not mention is why the painting was painted in the first place. Most probably it was so the artist could make a living. It may be that only in a Capitalistic free market society can the artist attempt to support him or herself by artwork only. From Berger's analysis of oil paintings, I wonder if he has come to the point to believe that every act of art is in fact an act of publicity. One might suggest that this is true because of how the mind 'consumes' art already. And of course it is the dialogs that come up like this that make the text so noteworthy. I am curious when this was written.

Kaprow has a very interesting perspective debating the essence of his 'Art which can't be art.' He begins by reviewing the principles of where we have defined and placed value in art. By putting a frame of a theatre or a gallery around art, he says, we project value onto the art, contextualizing it as how art should be. This seems quite contrasting to Kaprow's attempt to find art in the mundane context of daily life.

If we are able to agree with this suggestion of taking daily life as art, we enter another collision of logic, best described by Kaprow: "why should we want to estheticize 'anything'." His predicament is why should we want to see the artistic beauty in just any old thing. Perhaps in doing this we run the risk of simultaneously making everything and nothing art. By changing what we believe to be the standard, our definition becomes meaningless.

And yet he is able to climb out of the hole he has dug himself simply by reminding us what by simple definition this art is supposed to be: lifelike. He describes how art shifted from the classical convention to an urbanized, metaphysical, and digital age that has begun to focus more on art that is lifelike. Even art that is or comes from a typical behavior has its power because of how it resonates in the individual. This resonance does not require a frame or a theater. It may be as simple, in Kaprow's example, as brushing your teeth daily and having a moment contemplating yourself. I see that this is the art all around me, this is modern art, this is conceptual art, this is everything. Most specifically, this is not only Kaprow, but everyone as an artist. This is how I come to understand how "an artist concerned with lifelike art is an artist who does and does not make art."