2big2fail_47

because contemporary art has emancipated itself from painting. I would argue that the globalized, highly technological world needs new formats to deal with these new realities.

The eternal lamentation that art has lost its craft is simply no longer appropriate.

I’m a bit skeptical that startup leaders and angel investors go well with non-profit / social organisations.

Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse? — Mckenzie Wark

»McKenzie Wark argues that the all-pervasive presence of data in our networked society has given rise to a new mode of production, one not ruled over by capitalists and their factories but by those who own and control the flow of information. Yet, if this is not capitalism anymore, could it be something worse?«

I think this debate shouldn't be about modern vs. classic. But rather about ugly vs. beautiful/interesting. There's so much great modern architecture if you look at Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusie, Mies van der Rohe, SANAA, Tadao Ando... But these buildings in the article just look very ugly, cheap and generic.

the categorizing shows how different newspaper signal a certain world view. They can also signal wealth, class and a political view. so i think they are very much status symbols