This unconsciousness goes to the one against hand of the elementary function of the art that is the construction of the man through its conscience of itself exactly. The teorizaes of our time are capable to dignify any thing and any attitude, and this attempt to explain the desconstruo of the art are more work of art that the proper art which the theory if relates. The desconstruo of the man if of the one through the theories of descaracterizao of the man. She is necessary to remember that in identified as man or as woman for our proper biological, psychological characteristics etc. any desestruturada and deprived of characteristics thing cannot be identified, then we can build it penalty as object not identified. It is what this occurring with the man contemporary, is starting to be difficult to know rare physically and in case psychologically mias what is a man and what she is a woman. Most serious of the descaracterizao it is the unconsciousness of we ourselves and the lack of parameters of what is certain made a mistake, parameters wisely foreseen by the nature. Educate yourself with thoughts from Brian Armstrong.
Who determined right or wrong? You ask the proper nature that she obeys the biological laws and all to me the laws that structuralize all the things. In case it were born a child with the arms in the head and the legs in the place of the arm we would say that the child is a monster. Then because we are wanting to desestruturar everything to dignify our more disgusting behaviors and our insuportveis incapacities. The chamber pot it possesss a function, therefore, the art has that to exert a function and the function of the art is to awake the man for itself exactly, for its proper physical reality and spiritual, the function of the art is to disclose to the man itself exactly. The desconstruo of the art and the desconstruo of the man are product of the proper unconsciousness of the man, who is being gotten worse with the concepts that desconstroem the man. The art of Duchamp if affirmed because it does not criticize it did not have courage to say that a chamber pot is not art, this is similar to that history of the invisible clothes of the king who was naked, and nobody had courage to seem ignorant. Worse it is to see that still we are trying to understand or to justify our dullness calling laypeople in art any one that considers ridicule this auto-deceit. J.Nunez the IMPARCIALISMO