Is Foucault's representational idea considering art vs. the counter-revolutionary or is it also: too difficult for the conventional person to process what it means to be an artist. Is the act of performing as an artist = revolutionary.
What does Foucault expect are deviation's of his revolutionary approach if NOT acted on?
I suggest the opposite.
Is this idea inherently a theoretical pursuit toward something unattainable if the ideology itself supersedes our natural abilities as an attempt to exhibit fragmentary philosophy. Philosophy of "the artist" being expressed into revolutionary aim's. (i.e. fragmentation) Method in doing philosophy FOR THE artist is something as skeptical as a revolutionary expressionist would do as an interpretation of an impressionists work of art. I argue that this skeptical deviation is a model of philosophical inquiry, which in the act of working through pragmatic means together with reason meets the end point of what we all should aim for as artists.
- Marco
================
"What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done by experts who are artists. But couldn't everyone's life become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life?"
- Michel Foucault
No comments:
Post a Comment