18 Nov
2009
18 Nov
'09
1:52 a.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
.. one might even suggest that those bitching about it have been co-opted
into being part of the art project.
My bitch would be that even as Dadaist art it's not particularly new or
revelatory, hence: ..yawn.. nothing to get excited about on any count.
However, can _any_ fat mac be considered
"historically relevant"?
For that matter, can any of the first generation Macs really be called
"rare"? There are still lots of 128K and FatMacs out there.
Consider this - the behavior on this list regarding the piece pretty
much proves that it is indeed a successful artwork, at least on the
small scale. The point of Dada *IS* to be anti-art, and to cause the
public reactions that we are witnessing here. The bigger the reaction,
the more successful the piece, to the point that the content really
does not matter.
And consider this - what if this piece REALLY catches on, and ends up
in a museum (I doubt it - it is kind of derivative - trashed computers
as art is nothing new) - what then? Will its value as art exceed its
value as an artifact? What if it was an Apple 1 and ended up at MoMA?
Cripes, guys - I am by no means an art nut, but compared to you bunch
of cavemen...