EN |
 |
DE |
FROM WHERE WE COME? WHERE WE GO? WHERE ARE WE? Those artists and/or art-gangsters, operators and speculators who had "forgotten" that art was about that (and not about commercial success, cultural politics and Hollywoodian glitz) are now suffering the results of their own poison. In substance, nothing much has changed since Gauguin: Are we objects or subjects of our own history? ‒ Jean-Jacques Lebel
NO!art has continued way beyond 1964 and also prior to 1958. The "cutting-off" date 1964, as espoused by the art historian is entirely artificial. Such cutting-off dates are common to art historians, done for cataloguing purposes, and what is more, for accreditation of monetary value in the art market. The cutting-off dates also have a devastating effect on the production of artists, who are, by those means, being convinced that what they produce after a cutting-off date is secondary in importance, and do not belong any longer to the "new times". Yet the art market hated it, for practical reasons of creating confusion about monetary value. That is the main and real reason for art historians and critics insisting on this untrue measure. ‒ Boris Lurie, 2003.