Since my beginnings in art I had many questions about certain processes of artistic composition. For example, I didn't understand very well the reason of artistic styles such as abstract figurative or constructivist art. The reality is that the more I began to delve into basic and advanced concepts of aesthetics I realized that there was an eternal struggle for the dispute for the artistic podium as if it were an Olympic competition or a horse race.
It is very difficult to talk about this subject because of the complexity of the social groups that are constantly creating works of all kinds. They all defend their trenches like faithful soldiers.
Ready made was perhaps born with Marcel Duchamp and his famous urinal or bicycle ring on a sidewalk. In his memoirs, writings and interviews he was very clear that his creations were not works of art. It was all about criticizing the collectibles in museums that many curators and gallery owners dare to call art.
So, if Duchamp expressed that his proposal was anti-artistic and against the circles of fine arts.
Why did other artists take this technique as something genuine to compose art pieces?
The video and captures you see in this publication are from an "artist" who exhibits in the gallery of fine arts in Venezuela. It is sad to see no creativity and something too simple like looking for some objects and composing based on them.
The sense of art goes beyond the techniques, that constant eagerness to conceptualize art without it being something that flows from the mind through certain tools such as the throat of a singer or a brush on a canvas. I can't imagine a song with fragments of doll voices from the 80's becoming a piece of music on par with any classic. I think I'm giving a lot of ideas to other contemporary musicians.
This kind of "art" I can't consider it as such. You simply can't pick objects that are already made and reconfigure them and then say that there is an intellectual effort behind it and that it is a work of art.