Earlier this summer I took a photo of a boat that was turned into a sign for a marina. I was told by my local authority figure (my friend Haleh – who has a house nearby) that it had been there “forever” and wasn’t really going anywhere. Well guess what – its gone. I did take the picture, and while it’s not the best thing I’ve ever taken – its not a bad image.<\/p>\n
The real thought lies not so much with the story of the boat\/sign but with the permanence of art objects versus art experience. <\/p>\n
Try as I might I have no real answer for this – although a lot has been written in the past about matters such as this, I’m trying to find a way to find my words for it. More and more though I am coming to a thought that art for the most part is a temporary thing, to be embraced and remembered. Even owning an art object is not really owning art – to actually own the art you would need a way to capture experiencing the art object and the viewer. Effectively owning a piece of art is really only owning the object that produces art in the first place. It is not the same as owning the art experience – it simply makes the owner a gatekeeper of sorts.<\/p>\n
I think this is closer to the truth, but I’m not 100% convinced. I really don’t want to sound like a three year old trying to rationalize this, but like I said, words are really failing me on this one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Earlier this summer I took a photo of a boat that was turned into a sign for a marina. I was told by my local authority figure (my friend Haleh – who has a house nearby) that it had been there “forever” and wasn’t really going anywhere. Well guess what – its gone. I did take the picture, and while it’s not the best thing I’ve ever taken – its not a bad image. The real thought lies not so much with the story of the boat\/sign but with the permanence of art objects versus art experience. Try as I…<\/p>\n