Get over it

          Many of the stereotypes around artists include re that they do their work alone and their genius shines behind closed doors only for the public to see the final image. This is breaking down as the author mentioned. We’re taught art in school (university) in groups, we create in cohorts. Pieces are subject to review by our peers and rivals. The finished product is increasingly collaborative.

“I don’t know what public are is, really…Public art is something else I’m not sure it’s art. I think it’s about a social agenda.” Chris Burden.

That’s interesting to say the least. When I think about public art, I think it is art that would better the community by inciting discussion or giving inspiration. After reading that. I paused and thought about the criteria that the particular work has to meet. Its purpose weather it would edify of bring down. All of the criteria are subjective to what the current political scene believes is socially acceptable. Furthermore, the pieces that they would support tend to reflect the agenda they are trying to push or the look they want to have. It’s similar to Mitt Romney saying that he likes that too and that he supports it, to everything.

“We cannot judge new art by old standards”

Debatable;

I think we should judge new art by old standards to see how we are progressing. If the old standards still apply, are the standards good ones to keep or are they thing s that we want to move away from? I think there are advantages in knowing some of the old standards to help push through. New art in the sense that there is something new about the way we perceive art  such as the touch Sanitation project have meaning in another sense that previous styles like sketching don’t necessarily have. I think we should keep exploring new media and continue innovating in that sense. The innovations can lead to new standards that can lead the society to another level of thinking.