These two photos were probably the most peculiar out of the ones I’ve taken. I just noticed the garbage can as we were leaving the demented-virtual-computer-obsessed gallery and I just wondered whether that overflowing garbage can was just due to the laziness of the front desk staff to empty the trash, or was it actually part of the exhibit itself? The same thing happened when we were leaving the exhibit with the shattered coffee table and the aftermath of the black fabric storm. I heard someone remark about how there was a shoe print on the fabric. While everyone else was panicking whether he or she had been the unfortunate one who had stepped on it, I also stopped to wonder if the shoe print was part of the artpiece. Sure it sounds strange, but given how the gallery revolved around robberies (I think, it seemed like a recurring theme), having a random shoe print on the fabric definitely helped to add even more new layers of dimensionality and reality to the artwork. Same with the garbage can, it may have been left there unintentionally by lethargic gallery secretaries glued to their macs, but it definitely felt like it could have belonged with the rest of the gallery. It would even emphasize the abandonment of daily life as the gamer drowns in internet addiction.

But should a shoe print or an abandoned garbage really be considered as art? This is what has always frustrated me about interpretation of art. I think art should have an intention; it should be an attempt to establish an intimate, emotional connection between the artist and audience. I’m not really sure how I feel about the shoe-print or the garbage can. Usually professional artists are extremely meticulous with the tiniest details in their artwork, and I guess with these two examples, the artists were either not really that meticulous, OR REALLY METICULOUS.

What should we think about a gallery that might be “improved” unintentionally?