Extrem-Performerin Florentina Holzinger: "Ich muss den Leuten was bieten!"

Extrem-Performerin Florentina Holzinger: "Ich muss den Leuten was bieten!" | Willkommen Österreich

Рет қаралды 16,320

Gagolero

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 39

@user-bp5qp6ys2p Ай бұрын

Peinliche Moderation

@RB-xf9wt 28 күн бұрын

🙈🙈🙈du liebe Güte! Wie krank und traurig. Wirklich!

@rey01com 2 ай бұрын

wow, das war das nichtssagendste interview der welt. dirk und der andere sollten endlich mal gegen etwas nüchtenere personen mit größerer aufmerksamkeitsspanne getauscht werden. zeit wirds

@EdytaWeiss-wi9ln Ай бұрын

Nicht eloquent.. traurig was heute zu Kunst benannt wird

@StanislausTrink Ай бұрын

Bist. Nett. ❤

@Deathrose05 Ай бұрын

Mangelnde Folsäure

@sapereaude4107 8 күн бұрын

Bodenlose Primitivität

@afronovaable 27 күн бұрын

The provocative is not necessarily art. The extreme is not necessarily meaningful. The fact that there are people who think atrocity an art does not make it so. It only proves their lack of criteria. It's the same lot who can't tell a Picasso from a train crash. And the fact that there are people who watch all this bs (excuse my French) does not show quality, but their absence of inner culture and agoge. In the land of the blind ...

@cakebaby858 15 күн бұрын

interesting take. could be said for the opposite. The provocative is not necessarily art but it CAN be; the extreme is not necessarily meaningful but it CAN be. Who are you to say what art ist ? To some people, Picasso is the perfect example for something that should not be considered art, for some it is the epitome of art. Schiele has been criticised for his vulgar works, yet his works are considered art; and he's not the only one. Why should the beauty of something define, wether something is art-worthy ? You don't have to find something beautiful or even consider it art in order for it to be art. That's what is so interesting and captivating about it.

@afronovaable 15 күн бұрын

@@cakebaby858 Interesting answer. One can always go to the opposite side, whatever the thesis. “The provocative is not necessarily art but it CAN be; the extreme is not necessarily meaningful but it CAN be.” Under what terms? Who sets them? And why? You remind me the Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino. Critics MADE it a masterpiece (most clearly, it’s not). ‘’Provocative’’? Jesus Christ was provocative, Marx, Bakunin, Kafka, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick, e.g. Can you see the difference by measuring the quality of their impact? I am watching and reading since the early 1970s. This is what I have found: The extreme can be accepted and can be meaningful when properly incorporated into a larger scheme, thus emphasizing and revealing aspects of a wider reality to the audience (e.g., see The Deer Hunter, by Michael Cimino). If the sum total of a play is based and exhausted in vulgar extremities, then one may ponder: Does she do it just for the bucks? For the age-old lover of attention? The Romans were experts on that; bread and bloody duels in the Colosseum. That’s decadence. Is, then, anything art? What makes art … art? If anything is (or, could be) art, then is the actual dismembering of a baby art? Is the dismembering of a truly ethical value art? If so, what are the elements that make it so? Are there limits? In my opinion, the decisive factor is this one: Whom/what do you serve by your contribution? Where does your play lead me? High or low? Better or worse? How does it make me feel? [reports of people vomiting? …] If there is a message, is it practically helpful to me? Does it elevate my being? So, do you focus on base human instincts, just hooking people by feeding them, or do you serve a higher purpose? A crude example: back in the early 1980s, a young man I knew loved “death metal”; once, he took microphones and recording devices and went to a place where a building was demolished; he recorded everything and listened to it every day; it ‘made his day’ (he said). Can you really call any part of this art? Can you have it next to Mozart’s Ode to Joy (e.g.)? [if you love real art, watch Tarkovsky’s Nostalgia] This is known since millennia. Real art is meant to educate and to elevate. In ancient Greek it was called ψυχής αγωγή or ψυχαγωγία (education of the soul or leading the soul), That’s her utter meaning and drive. And that’s why ancient Greeks revered beauty, symmetry and harmony. They elevate your whole being. The opposite does … the opposite. Then, could it be that simplicity is the most supreme level of art? And the beginning of the natural?

@Enlil-mj3wc 14 күн бұрын

Ah ja, die Person entspricht meinen Erwartungen, wer hinter dieser "Kunst" steckt- traurig, dass man ihr eine Bühne bietet.

@Kleeblatt2000 Ай бұрын

Warum Nacktheit? Antwort sinngemäß: "budget-schonend" und "Meine Technik war nicht besonders gut; und ich musste den Leuten ja was bieten." Künstlerisch wertvoll? (abgesehen von Zuschauern, die dieser Art von Voyeurismus frönen und das brauchen)

@vladsirin 29 күн бұрын

Ich glaube, sie antwortet mit einer sehr ruhigen Wut und in einem Ton, der die Schönheit zerstört, statt sie zu loben. Ironie ist die Todesglocke für schlechte Binaritäten. Ihre Antwort versetzt eine junge Tänzerin mit Selbstzweifeln in die Lage, ihren Körper verkaufen zu müssen, um dem Publikum etwas zu „geben“. Es gibt absolut keine Reaktion der Männer, keine Einsicht, keine Leitfragen zu ihrem Thema. Sie waren überhaupt nicht an ihr interessiert. Sie waren an ihrer eigenen Meinung interessiert, von der sie unreflektiert denken, dass sie die Meinung des Publikums widerspiegelt. Ich wünschte, sie hätte einen besseren Angriffsplan für diese Interviews. Angesichts der jüngsten Aufmerksamkeit hoffe ich, dass sie ein PR-Team hat, das über einen soliden Hintergrund in Philosophie verfügt.

@DeiVatterEchtJetz 22 күн бұрын

Ironie ... wers mitbekommt