Conceptual Art

In the wake of Aliza Shvarts' antics and those of Guillermo Habacuc Vargas, I've been inspired to surpass my monthly quota of two blog posts and write a third. Now, Shvarts' "art project" has been confirmed as a hoax while the validity of Vargas' exhibit is still up in the air. In some small way I believe Shvarts' project was the real deal but is being kept under wraps to protect Yale University's good name. There are so many things wrong both of these stories I don't know where to begin. My main concern with both of these people is that they claim they are shedding light on issues which they believe don't get enough attention. (In this case, stray dogs in Costa Rica and "the relationship between art and the human body.") What both of these people fail to realize is that through the severity and extreme nature of their art, the message disappears in a sandstorm of social outcry. Its the same with the dog, we are all aware that many stray dogs end up dead everyday but actually killing one yourself does not bring attention to the issue; it just raises debate on whether or not you're a murder. I know a way to alleviate the stray animal problem of your country, start an animal shelter. This guy isn't part of the solution. I realize the abortion thing is 99.9% fake, but its the nature of conceptual art that pisses me off. Any asshole who thinks he or she is clever can take a chair and paint it red and put it in a museum or an art gallery and call it conceptual art. Its like this band Health:
There is nothing musical about that "song". Just like there is nothing artistic about those pieces of "art".




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-20-2008
UPDATE: I knew it! Shvarts' art project wasn't fake at all.