What appeared to be striking is that his artwork, which is currently exhibited at Arsenale, drew the attention of the media precisely because of the absence of any label.
Had there been a description, be it concise or detailed, visitors would have stopped by with the keen interest of those who are precisely looking for “the most vivid expression of our postmodern society” or something along those lines, when in fact the absence of anything legitimizing its presence just made it look like a wreck that was not worthy of anyone’s attention.
But how can a meagre label play such a significant role?
Needless to say, we feel much safer at sharing and resonating with what is socially accepted as convenient and meaningful than just labeling as art what is not commonly defined as such.
The issue at stake has not only to do with the role authorities play in the artworld, but more generally with the impact they have in establishing what is right and acceptable and what is not for society.
Widely accepted behavior greatly shapes the way we think without us realizing it.
To what extent is sticking to what is commonly accepted unknowingly dictating our behavior?
With respect to art, how much does the external influence we receive in the form of books, articles, and lectures shape our ideas and perceptions of it?
Why, when entering at Velodromo we don’t consider the cloth, which has been hanging up the wall for the past two months art, but simply a temporary panel aimed at perhaps covering a real work of art, just because it is not signaled as such?
Why don’t we rely on our instincts more? With respect to art, taking into account the guidelines provided by art historians, we should approach the matter in no literal way, because it is acceptable to dislike an artwork and possibly like what is not considered to be such.
