despite it not being a clear cut quality as far as why I like this art and why I don't like that art, when it hits me, it really hits me. the performance, for example, by lucia koch and takehito koganezawa inspired me to write and to think about spontaneaity for days on end. now, the triiibe triplets have the same effect on me.
are these the things that will be forever memorable to me, then? if I follow the logic, because these are things that had a great effect on me and kept me thinking for a long time, are they the epitome of art according to my definition then? what are people's definitions of good art? I'm sure there's different levels, just like anything else: art that I give 2 seconds of my time, art that I remember when i see something else by the same author, art that inspires me to communicate, think and wirte about it. is there art that just by remembering the piece I remember the smell or feeling I felt when I first saw it? that would be incredible.
also, either I'm super contemporary in understanding more recent medium or it takes more to get to me, but I just noticed that the top quality art to me is not something static, 2D or 3D. the things that have really stuck with me are mostly performances. is it because my best work is performance art as well so it's a language I speak better? or is it because it's live and interactive that it is more present?
thank you ms. soup for sending me the link for triiibe. it's really worth watching, made me cry at the office in the middle of my workday. i like art that passes a clear message across. i'm not particularly into cryptic work that leaves u feeling like u don't know enough. triiibe is efficient, to the point yet very visual and emotional. they have a great impact. make sure u watch videos of both performances: ICA (about identity. lighter, more playful) and movie!!! (about the war in iraq)
