The Persistence of Chaos - $1M for malware infected laptop
Comments so far have been focused on a reductive analysis of the piece that reduces the work to its base components. Reducing Jeff Koons&#x27;  One Ball Total Equilibrium to a tank of salt water and a basketball <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whitney.org&#x2F;Education&#x2F;EducationBlog&#x2F;OnViewOneBallTotalEquilibrium" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whitney.org&#x2F;Education&#x2F;EducationBlog&#x2F;OnViewOneBallTot...</a> .  Marco Evaristti&#x27;s Helena to a goldfish in a blender <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;artelectronicmedia.com&#x2F;artwork&#x2F;helena-by-marco-evaristti" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;artelectronicmedia.com&#x2F;artwork&#x2F;helena-by-marco-evaris...</a> . Or (more classically) Duchamp&#x27;s fountain into a urinal. As modern art is meant to be bizarre, this reductio ad absurdum feels true but it isn&#x27;t accurate in capturing the spirit and nature of these pieces.<p>We have been trained to see most works on canvas as art first, layers of pigments second. Through education, the skill used to create them has become evident to all of us - thereby sanctifying them from these criticisms. Yet all art was subject to such criticism at one time or another. Some even going so far to call Munch&#x27;s paintings &quot;An abortion, a failure like those Zola described so well D&#x27;Oeuvre. Here is no longer a question of nature, only a bizarre madness, delirious moods, feverish hallucinations&quot; and &quot;Are those meant to be hands or are they blobs of fish mousse smeared in lobster sauce?&quot;<p>Sounds familiar?<p>Art goes beyond the technicalities of the creation of the work itself. Art is a form of communication. An attempt to have a conversation with a society. Or an expression of the artist’s uniqueness. It can be that and so much more. The point of art does not have to be linear technical accomplishment, it can be the exploration of the bizarre and the strangeness of our world. The fish in a blender were put there as an invitation to kill a being. The point of the piece was the question, will a human being push the button? In a world where cruelty exists at a push of a button that is a valid and fascinating social experiment.<p>This work is original and creative in the sense that it packs what wreaks our world into havoc into one device and puts it on the pedestal. Our world is increasingly governed by blips of code. Bad blips of code have caused billions of dollars in damage. In that laptop lies the power of immense destruction, contained in a cheap plastic container. What does it say about us when we look at it and the world we have wrought? Those are the questions that pop into my mind when I look at the work. That’s what I feel the artist is trying to communicate.<p>We will at some point recognize the audacity of this piece as art as well. But we haven’t matured to that point yet. We still look at it as “blobs of fish mousse smeared in lobster sauce”<p>Art is an ever-evolving conversation. All we have to do to appreciate it is… listen more closely and relax the preconceptions that cloud our mind. Let them all fall away to hear what the artist might have to say.<p>It is far more interesting to look at art this way than the common, reductive lens.