Monday, April 24, 2006

an explanation

Folks, I think I need to clarify my venture into abstract daffodil art. I left my podcasting class last week feeling lame. All of the "hip" podcasts we looked at struck me as nothing special. One of them was by a woman named Rayne, I guess her blog has had all kinds of attention from the New York Times and other culturally significant publications. Anyway, the post we watched showed her in a car at Mt. Rushmore, where she considered the value of actually pulling over and paying to park or just viewing from afar and moving on.

Anyway, the point is that I left class feeling like it is totally random what gets to be counted as "cool." I told Liv I might have more luck if I just did some random daffodil art podcasts and called it a day. Thus the abstract daffodil art. I just wanted to prove that I could make something abstract and seemingly artistic..."artistic" by virtue of the fact that it is inaccessible. It seems like that is what defines so much of what we call Art--work that is completely inaccessible to ordinary folk.

Yeah, 'ordinary folk,' that's me.


Anonymous said...

Playground Arts: Creatives infiltrating society through a community art space is definitely accessible.

Anonymous said...

I think that accessbility in art is something that often backfires. Take Pop art, it was created for the common person and yet the common person scoffs at it and says "I could do that." I think the real key is to just create and through that you will find what works for you. You have to question and pursue before you see what works. The beautiful part is if someone likes it then it is accessible.