- “There has been futile debate about whether photography, film, television, advertising, or industrial design are complete arts or not.”
This kind of debate has always confused me. The meaning of art, at least in my life, has always focused around creativity and meaning. Defining art based on format, process, or placement seems irrational and the product of closed-minded individuals. In this way, I wonder how “true art” can be debated when art and the process of making it is not supposed to be defined or done in only one way.
- “Today we have made an even greater variety of sources for art available to ourselves. We started taking from the realms of the machine, the folk and popular arts, science fiction and colonial exploration, advertising and crafts, and are now bereft of any commonly accepted standards.”
Pozzi’s definition of “commonly accepted standards” is kind of confusing, though that may just be because I’m tired. As far as I can tell, it is a way to describe the making of art as looking into the past for inspiration and process. Looking to all parts of the past is necessary to lead the world in a better and richer direction, but I’m unsure if these standards are good or bad and what exactly Pozzi is trying to paint them as. Are these standards missing from the world in a way that we should look to reach into again, or should we, instead, let them fizzle out while leading a new way with the machines of today?
