http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2010/03/moma_acquires_for_its_permanent_collection.html
better yet: http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2010/03/22/at-moma/
This bemuses me. I dont know whether to be delighted by the egalitarianism of MOMA's stance on what constitutes a work of art (worthy of gracing their halls), or cynical of their narcissism in this endeavor. They say they have "acquired the design act in itself". Says who? Maybe it is the term 'acquired' that makes it so hard for me to swallow. Had they simply decided to 'honor' the @ symbol for its beauty, its expressiveness, its reinvention, or for being the defining symbol of the computer age (which I think is essentially their goal in this), perhaps the declaration would not be so jarring. An issue of semantics?
No comments:
Post a Comment