• petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    buy a random [urinal] off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.

    This is profoundly offensive to art history, actually. A museum?

    People go to great lengths to preserve CRT setups for old video games, but you’re like “nah, a TV is as good as any other.”

    Dude, your contempt for art is insane. I’m telling you, you’re jealous that I respect the profane and “meaningless” urinal and not your AI toys.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?

      Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I’m talking about passing on the fire.

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?

        Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.

        The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.