That is the name of an art show I picked up a flyer for on Friday night. It made me giggle, especially since on the back of the card there were five definitions of the word "assemblage" which I thought perhaps a little unnecessary. However, since I was joking about writing an essay called "Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction" after talking to an artist who creates his pictures using digital technology, I really have no room to judge. (His most famous "model" is called Symmetra and has gained a following, apparently. "What kind of following?" I asked, intrigued, wondering if there were an online community centered around images of a beautiful woman who does not exist except in the digital imagination. I thought it would be awesome if she had a twitter. Unfortunately, there is not; the artist just meant people like to buy the pictures. I was disappointed. Also, I wonder, would a digital image of an imaginary man ever be so popular?)
Then I got into a big discussion with my friend about objective standards in Art; specifically, why there're can't be completely "objective" standards. He's a maths person, so to him it seems completely reasonable that this could and should be so. There's no way to account for the infinite amount of variables in human life, I told him. And then we got into language and social construction and I'm sure that the art galleries thought we were appallingly rude. Say what you like, I just don't believe there is a way to encompass all aspects of human interaction and culture through axiomatization (is that even a word?!). There are patterns, there are tropes, there are ways of examining human behavior but there is infinite complexity in life that can never be fully understood. (Feel free to blog a rebuttal, phuan. Haha.)
Speaking of complex life... back to the grind this week. I don't think I'm ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment