I have been trying so hard at being understanding and compassionate when it comes to the newer styles of art. I have tried to stepping out of my lovely box and peering into others' boxes however I have found out that I just can't tolerate some of these other boxes.
In normal words, there is some art I still can't look as art. I'm sorry guys but it pains me to say that but it gives me a headache...and I really hate headaches!
The other day, as a class we went to the Chancellor's Art Gallery, and there they had quite a few pieces on display that were aesthetically pleasing and to me had some form of artistical element in it.
BUT, (there is always a but!) there was one that caught my attention and not for a good reason. It's shown below.
I can't remember the name of the artist however she used various mediums for her piece. To me, this is the equivalent of an elementary child's piece of artwork. I felt that she just had these extra pieces of non-valuable items and threw them on a canvas. If she can hang her artwork in a gallery and one day become famous for her artwork, why can't all the first graders of the world do the same thing?
We have talked about in class in regards to Modernism and Post Modernism and how these movements have more to do with the fact that they are trying to break out of the norm as to what people usually associate art with... However I still can't take in some pieces of "art" like the one above.
It is no secret that I love my Renaissance, Michaelangelo, Monet.... and the ocassional Modernist/Post Modernist Artpiece...but this one? This one goes to show that anyone can do art, and how anyone can get headaches from just looking at it! :(
Good post, but I'm not buying the "anyone can do it" argument as indicative of the art not being a worthwhile contribution. Complexity certainly doesn't always imply a cultural, political, social, or economic importance/value. Push your critique further. That said, it should also be noted that your sentiments are shared by a large proportion of artists and enthusiasts alike--the democratization of art may very well be upon us--but is this "truism" really a bad thing? Allow me to play Satan's advocate here (not necessarily my opinion, just blissful inquiry): Why should art remain an exclusionary practice? Is it fundamentally all that pure, holy, or transcendent? If art is communication, moreover an expressive and evolving language of sorts, shouldn't we all have the right to speak it, or at the very least, contribute a verse now and again?
ReplyDelete