The role of the artist in the city
In recent decades the city has gradually lost its place of peaceful co-existence for almost become an uncontrolled landfill waste selfish. The squares and streets are the scene of violent aesthetic assemblages, irreconcilable: the facades of the houses show the selfishness of those who have them, built them and they were designed, public gardens express the selfishness of the gardeners, paving the municipal clerk of the technical, the tapes of the official of the gas company for assistance, and so on. So what can the artist? Certainly, do not add to his many self-interests, which would be well qualified professionally, and even perform in arbitrary locations of sculptures, pseudofontane or piles of junk art. The city has always been a collective work with a rule precise integration. The role of the artist is a defined role, should not be reinvented, and only resumed full political acceptance. The artist must not add, to remove, to discern and cull. The city is full of useless things and the artist must strive to eliminate them. Must plan carefully, more to refrain from that act in first person and, if he decides to do so, must use lightweight, caution and respect for the fundamental values \u200b\u200bof human life and for the exclusive benefit of the city. Art in public places takes charge of its greatest responsibility as well to remember, it is proper to its old nature. For age-old tradition the artist has contributed to the construction of the city, has shaped, it has established artistic values, thus consolidating instances of individuals. But it will be possible for geometrasti, and the ragionieranti architettucci - once and for all - renounce the selfishness of which are impregnated and spill over into what they consider to be art but instead is nothing but vulgar, wretched vanity?
In recent decades the city has gradually lost its place of peaceful co-existence for almost become an uncontrolled landfill waste selfish. The squares and streets are the scene of violent aesthetic assemblages, irreconcilable: the facades of the houses show the selfishness of those who have them, built them and they were designed, public gardens express the selfishness of the gardeners, paving the municipal clerk of the technical, the tapes of the official of the gas company for assistance, and so on. So what can the artist? Certainly, do not add to his many self-interests, which would be well qualified professionally, and even perform in arbitrary locations of sculptures, pseudofontane or piles of junk art. The city has always been a collective work with a rule precise integration. The role of the artist is a defined role, should not be reinvented, and only resumed full political acceptance. The artist must not add, to remove, to discern and cull. The city is full of useless things and the artist must strive to eliminate them. Must plan carefully, more to refrain from that act in first person and, if he decides to do so, must use lightweight, caution and respect for the fundamental values \u200b\u200bof human life and for the exclusive benefit of the city. Art in public places takes charge of its greatest responsibility as well to remember, it is proper to its old nature. For age-old tradition the artist has contributed to the construction of the city, has shaped, it has established artistic values, thus consolidating instances of individuals. But it will be possible for geometrasti, and the ragionieranti architettucci - once and for all - renounce the selfishness of which are impregnated and spill over into what they consider to be art but instead is nothing but vulgar, wretched vanity?
0 comments:
Post a Comment