Alan Kaprow

Art which can't be art is really different. Everyone at some point has stopped and examined something that they do and maybe not considered it art, but at least analyzed it and found it odd. Kaprow took something that everyone does, and made it not into art necessarily, but analyzed it as one analizes art. If you think about it, a lot of the things that we do daily can be art, almost all of them. Because the movements of art have changed, and when he was analyzing brushing his teeth, it was more focused on the actual life and bringing that into art, I don't think that we would as easily connect something like tying your shoe, or washing the dishes to art, or very artistic. We as artists can certainly relate it at some point, but that is not our instinctual reaction.

I also think that it is interesting how he used brushing his teeth as an example, and we have two other examples that are directly related to being a human that everyone uses, the toilets. All three men, DuChamp,Kaprow and I forget the other one's name that made the squishy toilet that we looked at in class the other day, have used something that is so common, and routine, and made the viewer stop and think about what we have, and really take granted for.

When we compared the two toilet images in class, I was wondering, where does intent come in when you are labeling something art. Yes, both men used the toilet theme, but DuChamp used the toilet as a means of making soemthing. I think that he had a purpose in using a urinal as a fountain, because it is kind of disgusting, and socially unacceptable, I would think, where as, the squishy toilet is in itself the piece of art. It is supposed to be viewed as a toilet. I don't thnk that the intent makes one more successful than the other, but I don't think that I would necessarily place them in the same category. It was just something that I was thinking about in class.