Monet's unknown masterpiece, Dogs At Cards.
This week I am back on the art trail, although not necessarily ‘proper” art. It was contemporary art, or probably more accurately contemptible art. It isn’t that I don’t like modern art, just that I sometimes find it hard to reconcile what I perceive as talentless junk with skilled art. At the risk of sounding like a 5th Grade “What is Art?” debate, I do genuinely believe that to be classified as art- a piece of work has to show some level of talent, or a progression of skills, be able to inspire thought, give a message, and create an emotional response from the viewer.
I’m sure there are plenty of other criteria, and plenty of people would argue with me… (get your own blog J) but I do also feel that there are lots of pieces of modern art that fulfill this criteria. I still may not like them, but I will at least classify them as art. Maybe this is where I need to broaden my horizons slightly, when I think of modern art I am thinking of Mondrian, Kandinsky, Magritte etc; I guess in relation to old masters, these are modern. However, I suppose by definition they are also not contemporary. Something I have in my house to serve (and I quote an 11 year old boy) “a utilitarian purpose” should not be art.
That isn’t to say I totally disagree with the entire collection of the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Art). The main exhibit at the minute (and it changes on a regular basis as their personal collection is small) is all about records. Real vinyl records. There are some real works of art in here- a violin handmade by Laurie Anderson, including vinyl tape rather than a bow; which she actually uses to create music… it isn’t personally music I like, but I will happily accept it took real skill and vision to create, talent to play and it evokes emotion in the audience.
However, and I may revert to a list here… there were some totally inexplicable pieces (at least to my mind).
1. A shirt that had merely been taken out of its cellophane wrapper. It hadn’t even been unfolded. It was included because the artist mentioned it had round vinyl buttons. How? There is no forethought in that. It is a shop display! I have probably created more artistic visions in dressing rooms (trust me there can be a lot of emotion when I am trying on clothes!) A pre folded shirt is not art!
2. 9 LPs arranged on a shelf in three rows of three. I will admit they all had a similar theme in the title- all about race in some way- but again, not art. That is just an OCD neat freak displaying their record collection. In fact if my parents still have my records in their loft that is how I would have arranged them, in fact on reflection I probably did. I would have even credited the album cover artist with a thought provoking piece of work, but no- that wasn’t what we were supposed to be looking at… ummmm
3. Whilst on the theory of album covers… and if this had been done on purpose I would be inclined to be impressed, but as it was entirely accidental I think it may just go to show how whimsical and superficial the art world can be (anyone would think I’d fit right in). They have a whole collection of recently discovered album dust jackets. In this case the artist had collected a few records in his youth, removed them from their original sleeves in order to keep the sleeves pristine and replaced them with dust covers that he himself had doodled and drawn on- in typical teenage style. As he had gotten older these had been moved into a storage unit, which he had eventually stopped paying for and the records and hand draw covers thrown out. They were picked up at a yard sale by an art critic for the New York Times (I think) who decided they were wonderful and tracked down the artist. They are now on display in the museum. Now, if these had been drawn in the style of a boy to represent the feeling of the music, or the developing story of a adolescence, the trial of growing up and the “only my music understands me” feeling of teenage angst etc, I could get behind the whole “art” thing. But, they actually were drawn and doodled by someone, who didn’t really care, just wanted to keep the original artwork neat and then forgot about them. So, I’m guessing they didn’t really mean that much in the fist place. They look like children’s drawings, they were drawn by a child and have no real thought in them- I find it very hard to call that art, at least in a global sense, I am sure many proud parents would want to pin them to the refrigerator.
4. Performance art- again some of it I can get behind… theater, ballet, any type of dance in fact, music recitals… but someone putting a raw chicken leg on a record player? Am I missing a greater meaning in life, or is that supposed to symbolize some deep and meaningful concept that I am just too shallow to get? I would argue that it could be conversation starting if nothing else, but quite honestly I thought it was so ridiculous as to not bother. All it prompted I me was WTF pull of stupid face and walking off. I very nearly forgot to mention it here, but luckily I had made a mental note to mention stupid face, as anyone who has been on the end of it will appreciate knowing they are not alone.
Anyway, I think my rant is over for the week, and it really was a rant. I’m sure next week will be much more friendly… well here’s hoping.
No comments:
Post a Comment