Yes, many functions and only few of them are in agreement with the intentions of the artist themselves.Pluto wrote:An artwork has many functions, one being its potential to exorcise the input of contemporary society and turn it into an output, something processed by the artist and then got rid of. Freeing up the artist's inner self to source deeper insights. To paraphrase Boris Groys talking about Joseph Beuys, the things made are more like relics of his existence rather than artworks. The output of an artist can function in many different ways. Sometimes the work and the artist are equally exceptional like in the case of Picasso perhaps. The idea of an artwork existing as the transformed input into output, or the waste perhaps would work well with the Italian artist Piero Manzoni and his canned shit artwork.
For me many artists seem to have the intention of traducing the nature of art. Shit in a Can is not subversive, it is not clever, it is not the sort of thing that exorcises the input of society, nor - do I think - does it free the "artist's" deeper insights. No, Shit in a can, is shit in a can. It is not art. For me Manzoni has not made a work of art and so he has not managed to subvert art. He's lost my respect and anything else he might have made would be viewed with a great deal of circumspection as far as I concerned.