You know the ones I mean. Everybody does, yet they keep coming.
Like the one I saw where they had a room the size of a small gymnasium with just 7 bowls of tempera powder in a row in the center.
Talk about pompous! But the only thing patrons looked at for more than 2 seconds were the framed and gushing reviews of the ‘art’ posted by the entrance.
This is Tom Wolfe’s The Painted Word playing out in spades.
[ His simple premise was that the fame of painters like Jackson Pollock was basically the creation of a single art magazine editor, who would bring him up over and over until he was known to all art teachers and art dealers and art venues. The obvious question becomes, was this process intended to make the artist or the editor the star? An editor is not famed unless he has heralded a ‘discovery’. ]
So, anyway, is it art?
Is this different than what has happened throughout the ages, where the art we get is dictated by the mood of the patrons of the day? If the church holds the key to greenlighting a show then it’s a religious work. If rich Dutch merchants then it is their countrymen. If art magazine editors hold the key to writing grant requests for public showings…
I still don’t understand if there’s any reason I can’t just throw some art on a canvas, or throw some random objects into a room, and have it be art. Can I?
However, the real answer is to wait a century and see what people are still looking at. Some might be considered great art; some might be considered crap.
Obviously, some things in art musea are art. But exhibits like the one the OP describes? No. The artist’s statement or reviews in front of the display just might be art, but even so, they’re pretty bad art.
Jackson Pollack is a very poor example, since his paintings were works of craftmanship. However his fame came about, his paintings, although seemingly random, are quite complex, and not easy to do. While it is a cliche to say “a child could have done them,” this is far from the case. The average person would not be able to duplicate them. Mathematical analysis (some of it published in the journal Nature) has shown that Jackson’s evolving technique developed increasingly fractal patterns. Pollack’s paintings mimic the fractal patterns found in nature, and therein lies much of their esthetic appeal.
It seems to me it doesn’t matter if it’s art. The scape of the borders you use to define the already amorphous term “art” seems somewhat unimportant. Rather, ask yourself if something is worthwhile.
Did it make you feel anything? Did it evoke any emotion, positive or negative? Are you still talking about it? Yes, you are.
Art is anything that makes you think. It might make you look at the world a bit differently.
Art, like God, dies if ignored.
(I really doubt that EVERYBODY looked only for TWO seconds) … It should not be a surprise when people want to learn a little more about what they are looking at, and posting printed information is generally the best way for a museum or gallery to identify the artist and hopefully facilitate comprehension.
Note that such “gushing reviews” are by individual, outside publications, not in-house productions by the gallery or museum.
By the way, anyone can apply for a grant - you, me, even (as you apparently dread) an art magazine editor. And sometimes an art editor will write a grant and and do up a public showing of something he or she finds interesting. This sort of thing does go on. Already.
I know, we’ll let **Purl little me ** decide what is and what is not art. These decisions will be binding on all society for all time. Would that make you happy?
What art editor was banging out article after article about the 7 bowls of tempura?
Could you not think that maybe, just maybe, the magazine editor that focused attention to Pollack was just a real fan of his work? If he wasn’t any good, do you really think people would just fawn over him like sheep?
Can you name an non-representation work of art that you know is art?
I don’t see the point in arguing over what’s art or not. OTOH, I can get behind the criticism of little explanatory plaques. You’re right that people gravitate towards them and basically ignore the art itself.
I have to admit most of the art of the dark ages leaves me cold. Somehow the classical Sumerians and Persians and Greeks and Romans could do no wrong. And then there was a millenium of stilted parables. So, I guess if you counted up the years I’ve liked the “mainstream” art trend and the years I didn’t, a whole lot of a “classical” art museum wouldn’t pass muster for me.
I do have to wonder about what’s driving the art market now. I read about “major collectors” who have their works chosen by personal curators and then packed into vaults. Some will never be on public display. Even things donated to museums for the tax writeoff will often sit in the basement forever. (Most museums have more in the basement than on display.) I feel sorry for those artists. They got a buck out of it (proabably only a fraction of what the dealer got) but instead of art being visual, it’s financial, like a collector comic book sealed in plastic for the ages.
