>Museums typically buy things that already have significant
>value from other collectors. Or, have the work donated. Either
>way, the (very rich) public usually has their say first, about
>if a work is museum worthy.

You might be able to make that argument for older art (even there I would quibble), but when thinking about recent/contemporary art I don't think is accurate. When a living artist (whether visual or performance) presents new or recent work at a gallery or a museum, the "review" so to speak happens in response to the work and the exhibition - it hasn't been vetted beyond the world of the curators and art culture more generally, and even then that vetting is unlikely to occur at the level of individual works. The process of deciding something's artistic worth happens in large part through the exhibit as an event eliciting response... now, *who* gets to exhibit is super complicated and problematic but a bit of a different conversation.

Regardless, I'm struggling to understand how this is pretentious. An artist decided they wanted to present their music as an art installation, placing the music in conversation with visual art he made independently and with others as well as music by another artist. There are plenty of instances of filmmakers only exhibiting their films in designated spaces (including galleries), or visual artists being particular about where and how their work is exhibited because they have a vision for its presentation. And there is plenty of music that is written and performed, entering the artist's repertoire, but never recorded and distributed. What makes this decision, as an artistic decision, any different?

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~