Kaprow

The two Kaprow articles introduces the idea of non art and traditional art. Non art is "whaterver has not yet been accpeted as art but has caught an artist's attention with that psssibility in mind." Non art has a fluid identity. With readily available technology it is instantaneous. New media has become essential to communication.

The articles discuss the fluidty of assembleage art, activism, and other similariy forms. Not all "art" fits into the aspects of traditional aesthetic art. New mixed media or assemblage art is increasing-- it is acting as a contamination to traditional art forms such as film. It is a departure from art art's traditional form and content. Kaprow calls the attention to the context of art not its category. According to the article, these new art contaminants will replace traditional art and museums (they will remain a category for study).

The article refers to traditional art is institutional-- over generations people are taught what is aesthetic--- they are taught that if it is hanging in a museum then it is beautiful or meaningful, and there is no room for individual appreciation or opinion. Contaminant art (as it is referred to in the article) will replace these traditions. If these contaminant art replaces institutional art, society will still be geared towards an alternate non art way of perceiving. The fluidity of non art can become static in the sense that not everyone is a non artist.

The articles were insightful-- I remain unclear of some of Kaprow's ideas. There are many examples that widen the boundaries of art, activism, and technology intersections. I am unclear of what is meant by "the change is "high culture."