At what point is the line drawn between performance art and entertainment? Is it merely title justification? Are Coates' performances only a type of art because he says they are or is there some other type of requirement? The first thought that comes to mind is purpose; meaning it's art because he's doing these performances with a deeper meaning in mind. This definition could change, however, due to the reason people consume his art. If people only watch him because they find him funny does that make his performance not art anymore?
If these questions seem reasonable ways to categorize art than it could be possible for the same performance to be art in one instance but not in another. For example as long as he has a deeper meaning for his work and someone consumes his art because of that meaning, or to search for that meaning it may be considered art. If another person, however, only views it because they find it funny or entertaining in some way at that point it may no longer be art. This is an interesting though because it adds a fourth dimension (time) to an artwork.
No comments:
Post a Comment