fiquata

It’s not the object, but the idea... precisely. The idea is that if I, the "artist," decide that object is art, then it’s art... what you present is a bit of the critical-institutional view regarding the "object" that I know but do not share. More than focusing on the object, I like to dwell on the idea or at least the motive, which is to take a household object, perhaps the most pitiful, and write "mother," your date of birth on it and say, "this is art," knowing it isn’t, but knowing that someone will bite. "NO artistic object is intrinsically valuable, but it always is through a dialectical relationship between the viewer and the work" I agree, and that’s what I was saying, in fact, Fontana wasn’t exhibited where it was supposed to be... a sign that the boundary of art is tenuous. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but here we weren’t talking about beauty (subjective), but about art, and the urinal, as Duchamp said, has nothing to do with art, or at least he thought it wasn’t art (and I think so too)... more than anything else, it’s a joke at the expense of those who take out insurance policies to protect it. Then, whether the various Cattelan and Hirst are artists, I don’t know... I know that I like to go to exhibitions and that much of what I find there is fluff that someone brands as genius, others as historic, and others still as influential... fluff like the Royal Truzzi, which someone (one, really, and his disciples) labels as art... when in reality it’s a vacuum cleaner.

Good job, mind your own business.

But your God... intellectual exercise? The truth is that you have nothing intellectually alive in your body, and it’s the same reason why any toilet, like Duchamp's, travels the world with an insurance value of $30,000. And the funny thing is Duchamp said it... there's no art here, just a toilet, and despite this, those with a weak intellectual exercise see something in it and have given it a value of $30,000. And the beautiful thing, the challenge, is reproducibility, the fact that everyone has a piece of art at home and they shit and piss in it. The same goes for Royal Trux. You have a washing machine that produces the same sound and a record that makes the same noise... in the washing machine, you wash your dirty underwear, in the record, you see, with a lot of intellectual exercise, art.

As if I didn’t reply to you? Read between the lines or look up “Duchamp” “urinal” on Google... you’ll see and read some fascinating things.

Dictionary, open your eyes. Since the invention of photography, it's no longer clear what art is and what it isn't... I solve it all by saying that art doesn't exist. Here’s a piece of art: But let me ask you a question, just to see if I can understand you or if by understanding you, I'll find myself not having understood you at all. Do you prefer the fig hairy or shaved? No, it's just to clarify things.

In my opinion, it would result in an album that, if not influential, would at least be important for the History (?) of Music!

I understand: you only care about the numerical factor. So here’s the deal: start with one I know and we’re at 1, add you and Sgarutti and we’re at 3… we’re missing a 4! Who’s raising their hand? Anyway, I propose we make a tribute album to the Royal Truzzi and layer tracks in reverse of burps and overlap them with the sound of Sgarutti’s neighbor’s vacuum cleaner.

"One thing is to 'mark the history of music,' another is to 'be influential.' I swear: you are a legend. You remind me of the best Poletti... the one from the golden times."

Ah pains, ah! Let me understand: Elvis, despite an endless throng of admirers (and mind you, I'm saying this as someone who doesn't give a damn since I don't know him), counts for nothing, while the Royal Trux, if they appeal to someone present on this page, aren't that terrible? Ah, ah... I’d say it’s almost Game Over :) Look, with me, you’re breaking down a door that's already been widely battered. I don’t believe in the collective subjectivism of the sophists... I’m for Platonic ontology. So you can't say: A) I like the Royal Trux because I have friends who play that stuff and when they perform live, I don't even stick around to watch them, and I’m a friend. B) You can’t say they are influential because no one gives a damn about them except for Sgarutti and his followers.

Oh no, come you opened with: "the artist who has shaped the history of music more than Elvis?" You didn’t say fundamental, but that’s not the point… the essence is there. Go on, explain to me the influence (what an ugly word and it's not the season for it anyway) of Royal Trux and especially on whom they have exercised it. In the meantime, I’ll go make some popcorn because we’re in for a treat.