So I've recently started my new Cal Arts LIve! Art hitsory course.
And for our first assignment we were asked to choose or make two artworks that describe what we think art should be vs. what we think people think art is.
And having taken a couple of days to think about the assignment, the image of the opening ceremony of the Paralympics in London hit me.
I had read about Marc Quinn, and his sculpture Alison Lapper and how that stirred a couple of reactions from the Vatican when it was displayed in Venice.
It was very obvious that Art for me was about Contemporary values, pushing boundaries of the society and promoting an unseen hidden beauty like the work of Quinn below:
and although this would not be considered as Art for a lot, as I think people have this image of Art that should objectify beauty, and for that I'm choosing Venus de Milo which is an old greek sculpture that was found broken armed.
And ironically as the means of representation are similar and the visual is as well, the fact that we have found a broken sculpture that represents Venus as the symbol of beauty, vs. a modern image that represents what our values should be about and how society should be promoting self-acceptance whether it was this case or any other LGBT example, etc., it still feels that the notion of "beauty" is a matter of conflict and this is where I would stand of what I think art should be vs. how I think ppl perceive it.