does good art have to be mysterious?

it was kind of a weird coincidence....in rolling stone, marilyn manson said:

Morrison's enduring strength as a historical figure is in his mystery. I think the modern, contemporary treatment of rock stars on MTV and the voyeuristic world of reality TV are a great threat to anyone who wants to retain any sort of value throughout history. My whole life, I have tried to steer clear from "behind the scenes" things. They take away from the power of what you do. If you start explaining your tricks, then you are a shitty magician. I'm watching all these other people piss away what could be great works of art by going on Cribs. You can be legendary for not doing anything because of this voyeuristic culture that we live in. You can be famous for "surviving" something, or for marrying a millionaire, or for being a victim of a crime. It's a strange time that we are in now.


in the new york times magazine, one article bemoaned the decline of passive enjoyment of films. It quotes David Lynch, who "is concerned that too many DVD extras can ''demystify'' a film." It also says:

The more ''interactive'' we allow our experience of art -- any art -- to become, the less likely it is that future generations will appreciate the necessity of art at all. Interactivity is an illusion of control; but understanding a work of art requires a suspension of that illusion, a provisional surrender to someone else's vision. To put it as simply as possible: If you have to be in total control of every experience, art is not for you. Life probably isn't, either. Hey, where's the alternate ending?


this is interesting since martin (himself recently in the Times) was telling me that what makes new media art so different is its reliance on data and the possiblity of choosing your own experience.

is new media art still art? terrence rafferty might say no. having made a worthwhile (15-minute walk of a) pilgrimage to david small's illuminated manuscript this weekend, i'd vote yes.