On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:
> This thing about the flying dead cat as art is nonsense because the > contraption > was not made to address any art issue. It can't be compared to all the > transgressive artworks that were mentioned because all of those did -- > intentionally and with clear success -- address art issues, either as art > historical issues or art philosophy/criticism issues. Strapping a > freeze-dried > cat to a to radio controlled helicopter is more in tune with the novelty > market, > like those inflated shark balloons that operate with a little radio > control and > can 'swim' around the house. The kicker here is that the cat is an actual > animal, not plastic, however dead it may be. So it belongs to the whole > genre > of the weird, novel, and just plain sicko, for which there is a well > established > sympathy, if not an actual market, among the coarser types, usually male > gross-out adolescents. > > > Art--and just about every other human endeavor--now exists to do whatever it takes to "turn heads." And Bradbury was right about the media which eats stuff like that up because the media has become just an extension of the Guiness Book of Records.
