I’m no art critic and I know what I like. Which is not to say that things I don’t like are not art. However, on a recent visit to the Philladelphia Museum of Art, in the modern art wing, sits a long white table. On it, is a pile of potatoes. Yes, ordinary, run of the mill, farm fresh potates. Real ones. A few bushels. All piled on the table. From the top layer of randomly piled potatoes are wire leads all going to a volt meter whish is set up on an adjacent small table. Visitors can press a putton and receive a reading on the meter as to the voltage of said pile of wired spuds.
How is this art as opposed to a grade 4 science fair project?
That’s not as facetious as it sounds. By putting everyday objects in a museum, it forces people to look at them differently. Check out “ready mades” and dada.
Did it make you stop and pay attention to it? Did it make you ponder its existence, and wonder what it was about? Was it a significant enough experience for you to keep thinking about it until you got home and posted this thread?
How does any of that make it art, though? Lots of things that aren’t could accomplish all of the above. So what makes the potatoes on the table art must be something other than what you’ve listed.
Bollocks. That makes potentially everything Art. Stopping and thinking about a person’s unusual gait as they walk isn’t contemplating Art. It’s just thinking!
It’s art because it evokes contemplation, apart from any utilitarian purpose. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ***good ***art, but you didn’t ask that.
If I walk into a bathroom stall and some mental patient smeared feces on the wall, I’m irritated, confused, indignant and disgusted. But I don’t feel it’s art despite the fact that it made me stop and think (mostly about going to another stall). If the stall happens to be at the MOMA, am I supposed to consider regarding that smear as more of an artistic expression?
I have to call bullshit as well.
Just because some museum twat(s) deems an elementary school science project a conversation piece, doesn’t mean I have to consider it art. Do I? What if someone framed a vintage nazi flag and hung it in a museum to elicit an emotional reaction. That would be a sure attention getter, would it not? Would that be art? I mean it’s certain to pass the lithmus test of making people stop and think.
I purposely avoided labeling something “good” art. I happen to think Picasso had a lot of tallent but there are very few of his works that I actually like. So the test for art is not whether I consider it good or even that I like it. The test is something else.
I find it difficult to quantify and maybe it’s the old addage of “I don’t know what qualifies as porn, but I know it when I see it” (not that porn can’t be art - it’s ellicited quite the emotion in me from time to time. )
But shouldn’t art be something more thoughtful than a random pile of root vegetables?
Ditto. There is a thin and blurry line between forcing contemplation through traditional artistic applications such as paint and stone and forcing contemplation – period. I wonder if it matters to the artist what sort of contemplation the viewer has. I mean, if that particular artist was making an energy statement, and the viewer started mentally putting a grocery list together, does the artist then feel like a failure?
I’d recommend learning a bit more about art. You may come to appreciate things you’d have disliked before. You’ll realize that some art is just not to your taste. And you’ll be able to say with confidence that some stuff is just pretentious crap.
Time will tell. And lots of conceptual & installation art will NOT last–simply because it can’t be physically conserved. (Of course, many museums have numerous generic oils depicting Madonnas with Child or Allegorical Scenes gathering dust in storage.)
Why potatos? Why is the table long and white? Are the piles really so random? Is it really just the top layer that’s wired? Does the charge remain constant? Who is the artist, and is he or she alluding to something specific?
In my experience a lot of conceptual and installation art comes actually in the form of an easily-conserved piece of paper with a diagram and/or instructions on it. The artist leaves it up to the institution to re-create the installation. For example, if you buy a mural by Sol LeWitt, you get a diagram and instructions and you have to go get the specific colors and paint the mural yourself. The value and provenance of the painted mural is in the paper documentation.
So the potatos, once they go bad, they get replaced, and it’s not like you’re throwing away some holy potato worth $5000 that the artist had personally gone to Peru or Ireland and selected it for its quintessential potato qualities.
Is it art? Yes, No, Maybe.
But is it art that can be displayed as being “genius” in composition? Maybe for the hoity-toity art crowd. But I’d challenge them to pick out the “genius” work of art in a line up of similar works done by various nobodys.
I think it would be intersting to set up 10 identical exhibition spaces in a museum and let 2 “genius modern artists” each have a space and then give the others to people like “5th grader Jenny Smith”,“Construction worker Bob Jones”,“Homemaker Barb Brown”,“McDonalds employee Tim Green”.
Have them all make their own “modern art” display and see if the professional art critics can pick out the geniuses.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but by this token, wouldn’t a large, unexplained crack in the windshield of your car be considered art? Or an particularly gruesome murder reported on the evening news?
I’m sorry, but I don’t get modern “art.” Lumping potatoes on a table and broken eggshells in an alley in with the works of Vermeer and Monet seems wrong on many levels.
)