Next destination: Shedding House
次の目的地： 脱皮する家
Next: Croquette House
次： コロッケハウス
I was critical about these two houses. I wanted to visit the houses to see if I could like them. I'm still critical about them. Why did they have to make permanent, irreparable changes to such beautiful houses?
私は、これら二つに家については批判的でした。これらの家を好きになれるかを確かめたくて見に行きたかったのです。いまだに批判的です。何で美しい家に永久的で取り返しのつかない変更を加えなければならなかったのでしょう？
This houses were not in use for many many years (as I read) and they would have vanished without becoming an object of art. The problem with art: Some like it, some not. But one of the main reasons for making art is you give people something to think about, to discuss, to say something - and the objects do tell something. The houses lost their meaning a long time ago and now, due to their transformation, they can tell a new story and will survive. I don't think the second spray coloured house tells something very special or is imaginative (not to me, laugh). But the first one with the carvings is very interesting. I would like to visit it. The wooden elements are beautiful and even transformed the house did not loose its original structure and character, you can still see it. You can look at the results of craftsmanship from centuries ago covered by a layer of modern craftsmanship. There is something like an organic modification (growing and loosing) if you look at the wood.
ReplyDeleteJust my 2 c.
Kiki: Yes, art is subjective, and I wanted to see if I could like them by any chance. I didn't like them after all.
ReplyDeleteThe Shedding House was, in particular, looked fuzzy at a distance and was kind of irritating.