Call me old fashioned, call me whiny, call me what you will (just don’t call me late to dinner). My question for you is this- is much of what is being paraded around as art, actually art?
I’ve talked before about Modern Art (Is It Really Art?) where we consider “contemporary art” anything after 1950, which include Pop artists such as Rauschenberg and Andy Warhol, and abstract expressionists such as Wassily Kandinsky and Jackson Pollock (all who I admire). But to be fair, I’m mostly talking about the “Postmodernists” as a school of art, and of course not all contemporary artists share these views and styles. Post-modernists, like the Dadaists of the early nineteenth century, tend to challenge what we consider art.
Since “modern art” is constantly being redefined and even the term term “art” has so many definitions, the whole art situation can never be simple white and black observations. In any period of time not all artists were orthodox, with a few trailblazers and oddities with their respective publics not always going along with their shenanigans. I’m not always sure I understand the artist’s statements, and I know I’m not alone on this one. Some art is absurd, some is sickening, and some is downright infuriating (i.e.- a starving dog on a gallery floor- don’t get me started on this one). But I must say, perhaps these reactions are the artist’s desired effect (or not).
Postmodernism questions orthodox art views and critiques and claims that art is in the eye of the beholder. For example, a urinal with the added fictional signature of R. Mutt is placed in a museum gallery, therefore it is now considered a “sculpture.” Some interesting and anything-but-orthodox art of the 20th century include:
Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp
(Conceptual art)
Marilyn Silkscreen, by Andy Warhol
(Appropriation art)
Wrapped Coast, by Christo and Jean-Claude
(Installation Art)
Giant Curtain, by Christo and Jean-Claude
(Installation Art)
Spiral Jetty, by Robert Smithson
(Installation art)
Now some ultra Postmodernism can be downright ridiculous. In order for anything to be art, in my book it has to at least invoke something in the viewer-
- At the very least an appreciation of skill or talent of the artist
- Any kind of an emotional response- fear, sadness, empathy, anger, etc.
- A call to action- i.e.- anything political oriented, etc.
Some of the recent stuff you see simply doesn’t do any of these. I can’t argue against saying they don’t do anything at all. Art does not have to be representational as most of the pre-20th century art was, but at least we know most of the accepted fine art, i.e.the mainstream paintings and sculpture took effort and skill, as well as cerebral activity of some kind. Sometimes the paintings symbols were cryptic or hidden, and called for the intelligence of the viewer to unlock the mysteries, or “get” the painting. Do we much of this in today’s art? Maybe sometimes.
“For the Love of God” (really), by Damien Hirst- I think this is akin to those $1,000 pizzas, and $500 cups of coffee which come from beans which were defecated by cats (I can’t make this stuff up!). Maybe I just don’t get it.
Victimless Leather, by Oron Catts, and Ionat Zurr
Lullaby Spring, by Damien Hirst
Black Flag “Four Bars” by Raymond Pettibon
Humanity Asleep, by Julian Schnabel- Painted over glued broken glass and crockery.
(see top of page)
In conclusion I think most recent art is good and original. Only the good stuff isn’t original, and the original stuff isn’t good.
See also What Is Art? Amazing Abstract Art, and Is It Really Art?
Leave a comment