Pink Squares: Lunch Time Post

As they say, if white is the new black, and pink is the new white, then pink is, in fact, the new black.

Better?
Dont you mean Gooder?

I have been arguing this Good/Bad thing lately with a bunch of ironclad conservatives who insist Rembrandt is the benchmark by which all else shall be judged.

I insist Better is a subjective term, especially when it comes to Pink Squares, or even Legendary Pink Dots.

And when you throw the term "Public Art" into the mix, especially when it is as variably defined as it seems to be these days, your question becomes even impossibler to answer.

Isnt your question related to your answer to Blake Gopnik?

That is, shouldnt we be applying the Rodney King paradigm here, and all get along?

Each one of these pink squares is unequally interesting in different ways, because the individual artists each have their own entire lifetime of baggage, emotional, intellectual, historical and cultural, that they bring to the pink square.

The world has room for both, and plenty more to boot.

And yes, I like both chocolate AND vanilla.

Reis.

Reply from Weiss

I agree with you 100%. I am just starting to explore the number "1" taboo of art culture: Obvious Similarity between Artworks. It is only discussed in whispers. Every artist hates it.

Ophan Pamuk discussion of Islamic miniatures has a method to get through this problem of similarity without insulting the artists of common exploration or accidental repetition. Do you think the Nobel laureate would spend a few hours helping me figure it out?

In terms of gooder. The phrase "for whom" must always be applied. Gooder by itself is fairly self centered.

Glenn