I understood parts of Rauschenberg’s work because I agree with the idea that there exists almost no line between life and art. Furthermore, I don’t believe anyone has the right to decide what is art and what is life. Therefore, I appreciated Rauschenberg’s art since he took ordinary things and didn’t try to transform it into art, but instead, he highlighted the mundane character of such objects. For example, he took a taxidermied goat with a tire around it and put on it on a collage of materials. He didn’t transform the goat or tire into art, but simply put it on a pedestal and made people realize that this can be art. Furthermore, in my opinion, Rauschenberg let his audience discover the meaning behind his work, and I really appreciated that freedom. For example, his piece of 5 or so blank canvases was interpreted as a mirror, or as silence by the tour guide, but for me, it, simply, was blank canvases. I am not claiming it is not art, or that it doesn’t mean anything, but I am a literal person and all I choose to see are blank canvases. He took the mundanity of blank canvases and presented it to the world because anything can be art, anything can be life.
