I haven't seen the Chihuly show, but I've been planning to do so and it looks pretty exciting and fun. It may be that I'll end up having WRONG BAD FUN and enjoying DISAPPROVED ART, but I'm prepared to take that risk.
I am always suspicious of people who argue for the relevance of their expertise and position. I'd say the burden of proof is on the person making that claim, to prove their usefulness to others, rather than just demand it.
This art critic seems to be saying that people can't, or perhaps *shouldn't*, consume art, without experts to provide context.
I think the writer is saying "This is fluff, not art." I'm not sure I agree with the distinction.
This may signal a greater schism between "art for experts" and "art for laypeople," and I suppose the same thing has happened in other forms of art in the past century: music and theatre, most obviously. Maybe it's hit the museum too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 10:32 pm (UTC)I am always suspicious of people who argue for the relevance of their expertise and position. I'd say the burden of proof is on the person making that claim, to prove their usefulness to others, rather than just demand it.
This art critic seems to be saying that people can't, or perhaps *shouldn't*, consume art, without experts to provide context.
I think the writer is saying "This is fluff, not art." I'm not sure I agree with the distinction.
This may signal a greater schism between "art for experts" and "art for laypeople," and I suppose the same thing has happened in other forms of art in the past century: music and theatre, most obviously. Maybe it's hit the museum too.