1) There were some similarities between this reading and the last reading primarily in the discussion of the validity of art, or questioning whether something is art or not. My question is: is, and if so what is, there a difference is between digital art that an artist would make with the intention of submitting it to an art gallery and digital art that an artist created with the intention of marketing it to the masses like a motion picture? Does the first artist the true artist for sticking to what art has been in the past, or is he an uppity individual that would look down upon all other art that was not prepared in the exact fashion his was? And is the second artist a copout for making quite a bit of money, or is he the true artist because he wants his art to be seen, felt, and interpreted by as many people as possible?
2) During the rise of digital art especially in the '60's it seemed as though much of this new form of art was very bizzarre, out there, and shocking. Was this because that was just the style of the decade or was it because none of this had ever been done before so almost anything they could think of would have been strange or shocking? Probably a mixture of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment