Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Destructive robots of... Art?
Mark Pauline is destructive. His work is chaotic. When you watch the videos of Survival Research Lab, you wonder if Pauline knows what will happen next. Would I risk going to one of his shows? No. Do I appreciate his "art"? Kind of. I understand the messages, I acknowledge the efforts he must exert to create the perfect monster of doom to set out upon Earth. Yet, Mark Pauline makes me want to revise my definition of art to include a fine print warning "Art should not harm the viewer". Maybe it is this crazy notion that I fear harm. Maybe it is because I am not really looking at the whole peice because, give Mark Pauline's level of fame, there is not much video documentation of the Survial Research Lab. Nonetheless, art can scare you, thrill you, or give you any other emotion. But, never have I seen art that can leave burn marks. This could take some getting used to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Remember the era he came from. Try to identify and look at it from his point of view. What would happen if everything were safe all of the time. What about his audience? Who are they? Does the work offer any redeeming qualities? Either visually or in concept?
ReplyDeleteI like what he said about machine "I like to make machines that can just do their own shows... machines that can do all that machines in the science fiction novels can do. I want to be there to make those dreams real
Delete@Artunfolded I am not too sure what the era he grew up in has to do with his destructive art. He was born in the 50's, went to a good college in Florida. What could have possibly provoked his artistic ways?
DeleteI feel like he basks in the glory of being controversial, political, and dark, and because he is all of those he is "timeless" Seems that he might be of the thought that it is better to have negative attention than no attention at all. The work is extremely invigorating and I feel like he appeals to a very specific audience.
ReplyDelete