Later, the cleaners accidentally cleaned up the artworks. The video asks, "Does the things put in the art gallery become artworks?" The corner of the exhibition claimed that it was a work of art, and I also had the experience of mistakenly treating the facility as part of the exhibition or even taking pictures of it in a serious way when I visited the museum. "Can art be defined?" or even further, "What is art?" Although the question is often asked, there is still no convincing answer.
Yesterday, in a chapter in Art in Context: Rethinking the New World, I read the story of the original establishment of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, full of plaster replicas intended to "elevate" working-class taste, but not in the museum Open on Sunday, the only day off for New York City's working-class crowd. On the one hand, whether the replica can truly replace the original and play an "educational" role is still inconclusive. On the other hand, such "education" is not only hypocritical because it has no practical consideration, but also "education" itself seems to be an enlightened behavior of the upper classes who think they are "savages".
Afterwards, "Wild Man" really appeared at the banquet of celebrities. As a spectator, I couldn't confirm whether it was a performance design or the scene was out of control. The Kochi people who are civilized and know how to appreciate art are overwhelmed but pretending to be calm. It is also funny. Sad again. Some people will interpret this scene in terms of the chaos and bestiality of the "civilized people" that the behavior of the "savages" provokes, but I'm wondering why it took them so long to make those normal responses? Is it because it's supposed to be a show that they're convinced they're protected by the rules? Because this is art, and its audience shouldn't disturb it? Only a mentally ill person deserves to be allowed to interfere with art, like the rowdy man with Tourette Syndrome at the previous conversation.
Then think of the behavior that is regulated everywhere in the art museum, which symbolizes freedom and equality to a certain extent. "Do you see the line on the ground?" "Don't get too close!" "Don't reach out!" There are also those promises in the dark, "Enter the museum cleanly!" "Accept the curator's instructions to move. !" Civilization seems to mean careful observance of the artificial rules of "art". But what are we expecting? In these "civilized" places, isn't the whole society a place where humans are taught to stay quietly and not cause trouble?
If the film shows that the "savage" artist's behavior of breaking the boundary between performance and reality is also part of his art, just like some contemporary performance art works or experimental theater, all the spontaneous reactions of the audience are part of the work, I would probably feel that the work has Controversy and afterthought make confusion or harm meaningful. Then I thought about whether "art" as the square that was drawn out, in which everything that happens, is acceptable and even admired.
But from another perspective, what happens when established rules are violated or broken? People always say that a democratic society needs different voices and needs to be challenged all the time. The art gallery in the movie publishes counterintuitive promotional clips on YouTube to earn viral attention. In the current understanding, consumption of disadvantaged groups in the name of "freedom of speech", with impure purposes, should be questioned and cut off. Do we doubt ourselves, that our so-called backward thinking limits our advanced vision. How do people delineate the meaning and purpose behind an action? Or, should we not be used to speculating on the motives of an act or an artist's creation?
In front of the museum, the medieval bronze statue symbolizing darkness and ignorance collapsed to the ground, and was welded with a bright square and shallow ditch. What about outside the square?
View more about The Square reviews
