But how does one get into the position to be able to put someone sleeping in a museum and call themselves an artist? Do you have to be embedded in the art scene? Well-established? Anyway. Maybe this makes me a conservative yokel without any kind of appreciation for the more intelligent "pleasures" of life. Or maybe it just makes me someone who went to a museum and "didn't get it."

..in a most salient fashion. Why account for it when you can just write me off as a "frat boy"? [True story: I'm a college dropout! He's uneducated. No wonder he can't appreciate it!] Also, if you read through the rest of the comments, you'll note the stuff I did enjoy. But what's wrong with being cynical about art? I feel like if you're unendingly sincere about it, you're probably getting hosed by the artist.

Meanwhile, Ponomino: I'm not a journalist, and I'm not trying to be. Nor am I trying to be an art critic.

The best comment so far came from The Boulevard of Broken Queens, who asked the more interesting question..."is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.

That's accounting for art. And for the $12 I paid to support it, whether I enjoyed it or believed in it. I obviously believe in it enough to shell out money for it, though, so as far as sincerity goes: back the fuck up.

 Reply

But I do think your version of this pseudo-dilemma is more up to date than the original poster's.

 Reply