Apple-eating Caterpillar On The Wall
The accelerating screen does not move at a real speed like the reality outside the screen. This outputs the speed already calculated in the artist's head, stops and accelerates at the speed played..
If an abstract work of art is a place for discourse formation. What would the audience think when they first saw the banana on Cattelan's wall? Did the audience understand the intention and form the discourse through it? Perhaps the mind of 'Is this art' and 'I can do it' came to mind first. His banana is such a banana. If he intended the word 'Is this art', he is a true genius.
Consistent discourse is a formation. The need for discourse is not created by the artist himself, but is caused by the audience outside the screen looking at it. Under the dichotomy between inside and outside the screen, participation in events occurring in the screen becomes to audience's almost impossible.
For example, let's say there is a bee roaming around on the screen. Do we try to catch a bee while watching the bee, or do we appreciate its movement? If the bee's reality exists outside the screen, we will try to catch it or throw it out.
The same goes for works. Unless it is VR, it is impossible to tell beings outside the screen to go into the screen in the first place, experience the event, and reformulate the discourse through it to create a new discourse!
Let's take an example again. Suppose an artist does not use all means. Through work, through writing, and through words, the person solidifies his or her world. At that time, the artist presents ideas from his or her head, not biographical works that originated from his or her life. If it were a flying bee, once again. Do we want to catch the bee? Wouldn't we just look at the bee on the screen and go to the next place and forget the bee while looking at something else?
The world on the screen where the work exists is already consumed. The screen consumed as an image does not induce the audience to participate, because the world on the screen already exists 'to exist'. In other words, the world on the screen came to exist through the participation of the artist, but there is no place to engage anyone there. The name of this place is 'acceleration'.
The accelerating screen does not move at a real speed like the reality outside the screen. This outputs the speed already calculated in the artist's head, stops and accelerates at the speed played in the audience's head. What kind of efforts should be made by artists or curators who hang their works to prevent this phenomenon?
The work should be distributed and the exhibition-screen should be composed of various artists. A unified exhibition cannot be pluralistic no matter how multi-layered it is organized.
Exhibitions and works are different. It is the person who actually researched the implications of the work to rebuild. The play in which the artist himself appeared may be the release of a monumental head for the artist himself, but he will have to be responsible for the performance. If the artist has never been an actor, the play will be a ruined play, no matter how well the play is structured. Do you really want to see a ruined play.
Probably not. The artist also doesn't want to ruin his well-organized play. That's why he is faithful to his duty. If so, I have a question. Why does the current art world think that the artist himself has set the implications of the work to be hung on the wall and hope that a discourse will be formed? Looking at this situation, I think it's like a worm inside a ripe apple. Cattelan should have taped the caterpillar-Apples to the wall instead of bananas.