Response to Kaprow:
The example used - brushing one's teeth - is brilliant. This is something
everyone who reads the article does (or should do, anyways), and most likely
have been doing does in a similar "routinized, nonconscious" manner. Bringing
this to the readers attention will almost certainly result in a conscious
change in the act of brushing one's teeth the next time it is done - it will be
a consciously analyzed act yet again, as it was once when the reader was likely
much younger. I'm always impressed when something I read actually changes my
life once I've finished reading it.
However, I'm not entirely sure I grasped the point the author was trying to
make. The activity of brushing one's teeth isn't traditionally considered art,
true. Its placement outside of the traditional gallery also makes it unusual.
Then what makes it art? I'm not saying it is not art, but that the author did
not quite get the idea across to me.
Response to Weschler:
When someone loses a physical thing, it is obvious that the physical loss would
be difficult. Typically, focus is then brought on other things. The real loss
is the emotional loss, the loss of space, what the things represented, etc.
Here, however, a character turned that back around: the loss was very much
about the loss of the physical objects themselves. The choice to elevate the
normally base is quite an interesting one.
There is nothing in particular that is difficult or problematic about this
article that I can pinpoint.
Response to Saunders:
The opening airplane scene was a brilliant choice to generate interest from the
reader. When I began reading the article I really wasn't all that interested
in it and was mostly just going through the motions. However, the scene
certainly grabbed my attention.
The repeated topic matter of death was quite a depressing and, I feel,
unoriginal. People have been dying - and writing about dying - for as long as
writing has existed.
No comments:
Post a Comment