fuck Hababuc
Out of context: Reply #17
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- ********0
thing is that "artist" doesn't know what art is. He can do whatever he wants, of course, but is he allowed to use a living being to make a statement?
I mean, isn't art supposed to be a REPLICA for the things or ideas or whatever you want to prove?
This brings us to the problem of what galleries imposes on artists more often than not. that "new thing" which makes exploration seems silly most of the time.
unfortunately, i do not master english enough to discuss this in a more evident manner - so i'll just say this path is WRONG. Not morally wrong, but wrong on it's method and probably wrong on its aims.
Which makes it irrelevant and stupid.
I say STUPID because artists are using concepts and words to push the limits of what is not defined by word or concepts (which belong to linguistics). Art is not language. If art is language than we don't need language, or art.
one of the two must go.
that's my honest opinion.