So I was at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and as I was perusing the Museum (as I would sometimes do with the Jello concoctions in KU) I came across an interesting sign above a beautiful ebony wood chair-like object:
Please Be Seated
Exercise caution when sitting, as this chair is also a work of art and is valued by the MFA. Do not hesitate to use it as a chair, but please remain respectful of the artist and his/her work
(this is not verbatim, but rather a paraphrasing)
So, my dear Ali Kinsella, it appears that art can in fact be functional, as per a very distinguished Museum of Fine Arts definition of art. As you are one to trust established and renowned institutions to an extent when contemplating these type of hairy situations, I believe a response to this post is quite in order. All others are of course welcome to respond to this as well, but I think a further explanation by Ms. Kinsella is definetely in order. In addition to the numerous PLEASE BE SEATED signs above several functional but still artwork chairs, I also found several ceramic bowls and plates, waterpipes (indeed, even smoking apparatuses fit this particular museum's definition of art), samurai swords, armor, helmets, and other such weaponry (not the ornate ceremonial variety, but rather the functional variety) and coffins and sarcophaguses, even one containing a mummy inside. This museum was not a natural history museum, but clearly a museum of fine arts, exhibiting countless works of art that were at least at one time extremely functional. Even if they are given the status of works of art for having survived centuries of time, the problem of the chairs still remain, as those are very recently made. So, I must ask again Ms. Kinsella, what then separates our beloved Pineapple bong of the summer of 2007 from being a work of art, if it is not functionality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
here here kudos brown bear
Ravdog, I maintain that I am being misunderstood (misunderestimated, if you will). My argument has been that it a definition of art exists/could possibly exist, but not that I necessarily know what it is. If you'll remember, Patrick Strauss was the one who insisted art could not be functional, not I. In fact, I admit that when hardpressed, I have been unable to come up with a sea-worthy reason, but that does not proclude one from existing. Much love and thanks for continuing the debate. I wish I could have gone to the art museum with you.
Ali don't ever speak for me again or I will end you. I'm talking worse treatment then Michael and some little chicks---I'll go Pol Pot on your ass. Anyway I was simply repeating an argument made by Selena Hilemon who's husband is an artist.
Post a Comment