Questioning McEvilley’s Art & Otherness


  1. Would other cultures consider “our” religious objects art as the tribal objects in the “Primitivism” exhibition are considered art? Can we consider “our” own religious objects art, knowing their meaning and purpose? (pp. 44, 48)
  2. If art questioned and critiqued our culture today, would it say much had changed in the last 20 years? Or is there still a preoccupation with realisticness over abstraction (has the “individual’s’ freedom of expression” surpassed the “communal expression” yet)? Have we learned to “listen to voices previously excluded from the colloquy of the text of subordinated within it”? (11) (pp. 12-13)
  3. How do we have discussions about about the quality of art with other societies when by definition quality of art is tailored to a specific community’s values? (pp. 20)
  4. “[In early adulthood, we establish…] This is what we like, and who we are, forever. Behind this rigidification of taste is an assumption of universality not necessarily articulated. We feel that to change a preference we held in the past would be to admit that we had been wrong.” Is this something that can be transcended with education? If so, how can we convince society that the concept of universality does not apply to their own lives and use that as a stepping stone towards demonstrating that the qualities and value of art is not set in stone (universal)?
  5. What images and/or ideas might we consider “not ready to be seen” by today’s society? How does this relate to art exhibitions as battlegrounds for change in art theory? (pp. 14, 36) [Ex Dusk to Dusk]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s