https://doi.org/10.21697/zk.2016.3.12
Bio art is a specific trend of contemporary art practice, where artists adapt solutions offered by biosciences in order to create living works of art. Their actions are a subject to a discussion with dominant voices concerning the significance of such experiments for the fundamental ascertainments concerning what life is, but also for understanding the status of these constructed entities, which thus fur have not existed in nature. Posthumanistdiscourses such as aesthetics of care, non-anthropocentric aesthetics and zoe-aesthetics are a few examples of this type of reflection. However, is it possible that works, which could be described in terms of kitsch, constitute a solid ground for discussion of this kind? Clement Greenberg has written of kitsch that it is ʻmechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times . If kitsch represents everything that is spurious and non-authentic in our life, can we use it in order to make general statements concerning the basis of life? Can we make statements concerning the fundamental problem of life on the basis of projects, which confront us with glow-in-the-dark rabbits or paintings created with genetically modified colorful bacteria? In my paper I would like to refer to these questions on the basis of an artwork that can be classified in terms of kitsch.
Download files
Citation rules
Cited by / Share
Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Język Polski
English
Italiano