Re: [microsound] Re: pop vs. art OT

[tad <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/18/02 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Markowitz <jeremymarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> I wish you could explain more Bourdieu's distinction
> between "physical" appropriation and "symbolic"
> appropriation and why it matters...

It's a question of power and "have and have not."

Most of us go to a Museum to appreciate art. It's quite a shock to walk
into Philip Johnson's house and see the Giorgione you spent a couple of
weeks studying in college, or Ronald Lauder's house and seeing your
favorite Oldenburg sculpture next to the sofa, or Mary Tyler Moore's
apartment and see David Hockney's "The Swim" which is on the cover of
Rehner Banham's book on LA.

Sort of like walking into an elevator and finding your self alone with a
movie star.

People who can afford this stuff have the natural relation to it. Those
who can't afford it have to compensate for their loss in some way, often
by knowing a lot about Oldenburg or Giorgione or Hockney. Becuase very
few of us can afford the real thing, this compensation becomes a social
characteristic and not a mark of personal failure.

I hope you read about the fellow in Germany whose mother destroyed some
$4 billion in art that he had stolen to keep him out of trouble? Turns
out he just liked the stuff and was moved to take it off the walls of
European museums.

That's another solution!

Tad

<tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>