bloop. post-modernismsmsmmm.

So this question is difficult for me to answer because I can definitely see both sides to the story.
I can say that I definitely cannot agree with the saying "Anything can be art." Even as artist I can definitely say I've seen pieces that cause me to think "why the hell is this hanging up in a gallery?" However, I will also admit that I have thought this about certain pieces then also changed my mind after learning the thought or meaning behind it.
Anywho, so I think that post-modernism is a progressive phenomenon because since "everything has been done" it definitely has a lot to do with the process because the product doesn't have much to show. To take Andy Warhol for example, I think that his color choices and the repetition that he uses in his works create a great visual effect, but as far as a "work of art"- it's almost the equivalent of someone using a photoshop on a picture of their dog and calling it art.
But then again, how often do people do/create things without wanting some kind of reaction from someone? Therefore I can see how post-modernism is a very reactionary phenomenon. Then looking at the two images from Theory Toolbox- Van Gogh's Peasant Shoes and Warhol's Diamont Dust shoes, it even more- for me- shows the reactionary side of post-modernism.
Peasant Shoes- Looking at Van Gogh's painting does not really urk any kind of reaction in me- because it's a still life and "it is what it is." I don't find myself trying to interpret what the painting might mean, if there is even any meaning there.
However, with Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes (and now I'm just contradicting what I said earlier) the colors and the framing of the piece make me think, "Why these colors? Why this placement? What is he trying to say?"

bah. maybe after answering the question I can now say that I agree more with the statement that post-modernism is reactionary.

-angela-