Admittedly, Dilf was the art major, not me. But here's something that always confused me (as a writer) about visual artists: if you have to write a pamphlet to explain what you were trying to express with your art, why didn't you just write about it in the first place? Why go to all that trouble of decapitating mannequins, stealing your grandma's menorah and buying all that camouflage at JoAnn Fabrics? I thought the point of the painting or sculpture or "installation" or whatever was to communicate your ideas to your audience through your chosen medium. If the artist needs a pamphlet to explain his concept, doesn't that mean he didn't do his job correctly in the first place? Just a question.
Anyway, the artist took up an entire museum to say this:
""From the youngest to the oldest, the Palestinian baby dressed in camouflage to the Volga fisherman wearing surplus military dress, or the antiglobalization 'street fighter,' and the glamorous female pop star, everyone wears the same camouflage look. ... To wear the same dress is the dystopian act towards achieving utopia. ... From ONE DRESS to ONE ARMY to ONE WAR to ONE WORLD. These are the dystopian steps to utopia."
I don't own one single piece of camouflage. What does that mean? Perhaps I should explore my feelings on Utopia...
