Interesting. Is propaganda art? It sure can be, but suddenly the audience is torn. Suddenly its about a mortal opinion that must be read, as a more unifying theme is carried by image alone. Propaganda can't do that. When art is subjected to real elements such as the examples in the article suddenly its about the artist and not the art.

If the art only has value because it was someone's real blood or it was actually drawn by a four year old or someone's left foot...it in my eyes it becomes exploitation.

That doesn't mean it has no value, it certainly can but it takes away from pure emotion.

Art isn't about expressing a certain societies intelligence as it is about tapping into the spiritual that is hard to express through daily mortal life. It's something anyone can understand no matter what language they may speak.

Blood on a wall really doesn't say anything without footnotes, and so the art form is lowered.

Very interesting thoughts - thanks so much for sharing! I really agree with you, I don't know how I feel about the angle that art is an "elitist" language that only those versed in art history and philosophy can understand. . .

--
/reflections across the mirror of my eye//

Yeah, that would be rubbish. Comparing it to music, I don't need to know music theory to appreciate the emotion focused. Someone who knows the technical things may know more about how the piece was created thus their critic may be of more value professionally but even still that doesn't guarantee a popular or powerful piece.

Amen!

--
/reflections across the mirror of my eye//