"If you were in a burning house, and there was a cat and a Rembrandt, what would you save? The cat... you would save the cat, because the cat is alive. Art is dead. It's just paint on canvas, ink on a page. To live for art is to deny life. It's just to destroy life."
- Diane Frolov/Andrew Schneider
Debatable?
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While I understand the quotaion's opinion on the value of life in any form, I maintain the painting has more value. Art that has been given established value by society must have been given said value for a reason. In the case of much art it is because the art conveys beauty, or an equally abstract and important emotion. Does a cat convey this emotion? If so why do we not stare at cats in musuems? And if any and all life is of more value than art, would you save a lobster from the fire instead of the painting? Would you eat lobster for dinner ever again? I consider a good Lobster Bisque art, yet it not only allows, but requires life to be lost.
I also think that the idea that life is more important than an abstract concept, such as "art is beauty" is flawed. This assumes that life should not be lost in persuit and preservation of that which is not another life. ie It is wrong that I give my life (or take another's) to uphold what I believe in, say Freedom and Justice, because I am denying life, which is "wrong".
Just because something lives does not assure it value in this world.
Post a Comment