Interesting little piece in the Times. I guess there is part of me that wants to thunder about the ways in which the elite seem to find new and innovative ways to become shittier each year, but this seems more like the logical continuation of a process that was already happening than some new outrage. I guess what I am saying is that I agree with the anonymous artist quoted at the end. Or another way to think about it: something or someone can only be treated in a way counter to intrinsic interests if allowed to do so. Maybe so much art is treated like a commodity because that is all it aspires to be.

And again, rather than blather about the 1% or whatever, I ask you, in considering, again the artist's quote, where he states it's all "less about the artwork saying something or doing something and more about the artwork representing a value", doesn't this apply to much of everything else, too? I figure I could drop that quote pretty easily into a discussion about music or even, with slight modification, into a critique of most of the discourse surrounding food and drink. 

Uovo is a symptom of a change, not the change itself.

No comments: