So there are quite a few things I don't really fully grasp in this world, and one of them is cars. Their workings, their popularity, their different types; I just don't get it.
I also do not understand the intricate details of how the art market works and how it has worked in the last few decades. It has been explained to me time and time again, but it never quite clicks with me and therefore I've not a lot to say on the subject.
I've never been great with comprehending readings that I am assigned- for the most part I'll read or respond to them in an entirely different context- and this article was no different. What I think I'm getting is that he's angry about something in regards to the art market, something along the lines of everyday objects- particularly vehicles and technology of sorts- became customized and slowly developed to look more artistic and become, in themselves, works of art that held status? Whereas art itself was being commodified and slipped slowly away from such a status. Or maybe it went in the same direction? I'm genuinely unsure, I don't get what he's saying and his attitude towards it is pretentious enough to make me not really care enough to try and understand.
In short, I don't understand cars or the art world, so this article makes about zero sense to me. He sounds bitter about something, but I don't really understand what it is, and Hickey's attitude doesn't particularly make me want to care.
No comments:
Post a Comment