While my husband and me were searching for the super moon on June 23rd to take some pictures of the event, I came across with this dead seagull against the street curb in our neighborhood. I was ¨delighted¨ to see the composition of the bird´s posture, the white and black of the feathers contrasting with the red curb, the virtual triangle, the parallel of the wing, a feather slightly and pleasantly encroaching in the curb. And of course, I took a couple of pictures from which I´ve selected these two.
Though my husband is an artist and architect, he was upset to see me so interested on the bird; and after two days he´s still claiming that to impress people with shocking images is not art. ¨A dirty toilette is not art at all.¨ Besides, ¨you are influenced by the work of Peter Greenaway, he´s disgusting!¨ I do not agree with the concept, specially after reading ¨Has Modernism Failed?¨, the great book written by Suzy Gablik, who clearly explains why some banal objects are considered pieces of art, among other important discussions.
What is clear for me, and following Suzy Gablik´s explanation, once I take a picture, filter it, and make it mine, then, it´s art, and it doesn´t matter if people like it or not. That´s part of another discussion, if arts is a social tool or not.
It is even more interesting and morbid, -I would recognize-, once I filtered the image, the traces of blood showed up on the street, adding some abstract lines to the composition.
My youngest daughter said the problem was the bird has trash next to it, somehow it looks abandoned (see the candy wrap). I posted one of these pics in my Facebook wall and a friend of mine said ¨it seems it died because it ate snickers.¨ That was an unexpected funny comment from someone who knows how to read an abstract.
After all, this is a real urban street.
No comments:
Post a Comment