The article mentions declarations placed in museums that “implied that museums obscure the ideological functioning of images via the imposition of spurious value judgments or taxonomies” (165).
While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.
In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?
No comments:
Post a Comment