Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
Re: Disposable Art
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]R. Moore
Fri, 7 May 1999 17:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Some visitors to the "Trash from the Past" site in Philosophers' Forum
have commented on the observation that Marcia and I tossed off that
ancient Romans assumed their architectural monuments would be around for
centuries (and many are), whereas we assume that our modern buildings
will be dispoed of in a few decades. The tenants in downtown office
towers don't want to be thought of as working in "old" buildings; so they
abandon the twenty-year old building for the brand new one, leaving the
older space hard to rent. What a shame! What a pity that we plan
obsolesence into our art, our architecture. Of course, not everyone does.
I would say Richard Meier and Frank Gehry expect their work to be around
for centuries; but they are the exception to the rule.
It is probably worth having art students think about the relation
of art to time. An excellent book by Walter Kauffman, called TIME IS AN
ARTIST, deals with the way art plans for (or fails to plan for) time's