Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
I'm criticizing the claim that the dog in the gallery is no different from the dogs outside. The fact that the artist gains notoriety from the dying dog is what I'm most disgusted by. He's pointing his finger as he's counting his cash. To put forth something as "art" is to suggest that it is something worthy paying for to see. But once it is patronized, the artist is accusing the audience of hypocrisy for doing so. The hypocrisy is entirely the artist's and by his own words it is not art.
|
what makes you think he's counting his cash? he's an emerging artist, so he's selling his stuff at lowball prices to start with; he does installations so there isn't a lot to sell in the first place - what does he sell? the dog food he glued to the wall? the dead dog? MAYBE some photos of the event IF he's lucky... then the gallery takes its cut, sometimes up to 50% i wouldn't be surprised if he scraped by breaking even... the notoriety is about ALL he got out of this.
...now if you want to take issue with that, be my guest, but the idea that he's got wads of cash is just silly....