The Arts?

There was an article in the World Section of our local newspaper about a show in Rapid City, South Dakota where French performance artists vomited, simulated sex and threw fake faeces besides stripping and called this ‘art’! The promoter for these Frenchmen, Kevin Dorsman seems to think that it was well done as performance art although it was stopped shortly after the simulated sex act involving a carrot. The promoter did apologise as he discovered that the act was too extreme for the people of Rapid City. It seems nobody really knew what these guys were going to do when they hired them. Is this really art?

When you say art to me, not necessarily ‘performing’, this is what comes to my mind :

Venus de Milo, an ancient Greek statue and one of the most famous works of ancient Greek sculpture.

Mona Lisa, or La Gioconda (La Joconde), a 16th century oil painting on poplar wood by Leonardo da Vinci.

The Taj Mahal (sometimes called "the Taj") generally considered the finest example of Mughal architecture, a style that combines elements of Persian, Turkish and Indian.

Performing arts would bring to mind things like cultural dances, Shakespeare, musicals, mime, magic shows, stage bands, opera, and so on and so forth …

How could vomitting, throwing fake faeces and simulating sex act with a carrot be calssified as art? What is the world coming to or did I miss something in the last decade or so? I might have been in a Rip Van Winkle zone when they reclassified the term ‘performing arts’. But if given the choice, I would rather have nothing to do with it even if I am considered as a prude or old fashioned. I have to draw the line for myself and this type of ‘performing arts’ stays out of my zone. Waaaaaaaaaaaay out.