Well it does not look like an art piece but that's not that much important.
Art's purpose is to stimulate. It does not need to be likeable.
Well, you could have a dump on a piece of cardboard and present that as art. It would stimulate people for sure but I´m not sure about the purpose of that stimulation. I doubt that it´d elevate the spirit much.
I understand what you mean but yeah it is even true for dump. You don't even need to present it as art.
Art may irritate, it is new so-called modern art is like that. Purpose becomes irritation so.
Yes, and this is certainly an angle worth considering:
To be fair, the museum’s cleaners were presented with a genuine conceptual challenge. They were told to clean up after an evening event – get rid of the empty wine bottles, that sort of thing. Goldschmied and Chiari’s exhibition, a comment on the corruption of 1980s Italy that tried to evoke the decadence portrayed in Paolo Sorrentino’s film Il Divo about that same era, was a careful recreation of the aftermath of a party with lots of empty wine bottles everywhere. You can see how the confusion arose.
Yet, far from being a condemnation of contemporary art, this habit cleaners have of mistaking it for rubbish is proof of its enduring vitality, or at least, indestructible novelty. Artists have been bringing rubbish, the stuff of everyday life that we use and throw away, into the gallery for more than a century now – ever since Picasso stuck bits of newspaper and chair caning to his paintings.
Cleaners have presumably been throwing it away for more than 100 years, too. Most of the first readymades have vanished – modern icons such as Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, bicycle wheel, bottle rack and snow shovel were lost long ago and had to be remade in the 1960s. Were the originals simply chucked in the bin?
This art has been around for so long that, by rights, it ought to have become safe and cosy. In many ways it has. Visitors to Tate Modern stare respectfully at garden shrubberies or Duchamp’s (remade) pissoir. But still, the cleaners keep chucking stuff away – cussed working-class critics of modern art who are the last bastions of criticism now that Brian Sewell has gone.
Museums and artists don’t really mind. In Bolzano, they will just open another bottle. And why? Because as long as someone thinks modern art is rubbish, it is still provocative. It is still dangerous. Never mind that it sells for millions, and is enshrined with religious fervour in the world’s most powerful museums. Contemporary art may have all the hallmarks of establishment culture, but it is still Challenging, Subversive and Radical. It must be. The cleaners are still throwing it away.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/shortcuts/2015/oct/27/modern-art-is-rubbish-why-mistaking-artworks-for-trash-proves-their-worth
