[Diapositivo]

It is a bit like a musician playing an unusually edited portion of another musician's composition - the performance itself is also a statement on its own.

A musician playing something is performing, and brings its own artistic contribution, a "reading" or reinterpretation of the music, performed by him.

A good musical analogy for the "work" at stake would be somebody playing a record, recorded by somebody else, through an electronic player I mean, inserting blanks here and there. Inserting blanks and cutting away bits and pieces of somebody else's performance is not a creative effort.

Another analogy with sculpture would be taking a ready-made copy of a statue (let's say the David by Michelangelo, you easily find plenty of copies), break it and "exhibit" under your name a piece of arm, a foot, half the head, etc. You may even arrange them "creatively", let's say by putting the foot above the head, but that's already much more "creative" (so to speak) than what the work at stake is.

Or you can take the same statue and put a Burkha on it. Such a statement! Or you can dress it like a pirate, or like Thomas Jefferson. Or like the Virgin Mary (that would help with promoting the work exploiting the "scandal"). It would be carnivalesque in any case, and good for Carnival. Otherwise, just pathetic. You can call it "art" because anything can be called "art".

You can exhibit an excrement in the Venice Biennale and call it art. Probably somebody did it already, in fact. That would be very Dada. Just call it "morning thought".

It's not honest, or dishonest. It's beyond that. It's just plain crap.