Monday, June 14, 2004
Some Nonsense About Art
The main thing I took away from the Southern California MFA art show is that contemporary art appeals mostly to contemporary artists. I'm not sure if this is due to its apathy with more traditional, easy to digest, forms, like painting and sculpture (at least, that's what I was lead to believe from this show, which showcased mostly installations from roughly 8 MFA programs in So. Cal.). Or if we just don't have the patience to tolerate the odd. Some of it was just bad and full of air. But there was a lot I liked. I'm just not sure I can tell you why, which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. But at what point does the unexplainable, or barely explainable, stop being art and start being masturbation?
So we left wondering about this line between innovative/profound and bullshit (something I've also wondered about the writing of Dave Eggers, incidentally). Lisa was all, "Check it. If I can do it, it doesn't count as art!". And Stacey was like, "Shut yo mouth. Modern art always makes me feel dumb". Turns out they were both wrong. Some of the installations seemed way more inspired and deliberate than others. Which brought me to this. Seems to me the value of an artist, and the value of the art, is its ability to articulate something specific. I don't think that abstract, random, and lo-fi means untalented. The raw talent lies in the mind that envisions the final product. Perfecting the means to get there varies in importance, depending on the medium. But as a spectator, you have to give it a chance. If it evokes something for or in you, then it's done its job, even if you can't necessarily spell it out.
So there. Bam! I've cracked the nut that is modern art. Anything else you need explained? (No chemistry questions, please).
The main thing I took away from the Southern California MFA art show is that contemporary art appeals mostly to contemporary artists. I'm not sure if this is due to its apathy with more traditional, easy to digest, forms, like painting and sculpture (at least, that's what I was lead to believe from this show, which showcased mostly installations from roughly 8 MFA programs in So. Cal.). Or if we just don't have the patience to tolerate the odd. Some of it was just bad and full of air. But there was a lot I liked. I'm just not sure I can tell you why, which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. But at what point does the unexplainable, or barely explainable, stop being art and start being masturbation?
So we left wondering about this line between innovative/profound and bullshit (something I've also wondered about the writing of Dave Eggers, incidentally). Lisa was all, "Check it. If I can do it, it doesn't count as art!". And Stacey was like, "Shut yo mouth. Modern art always makes me feel dumb". Turns out they were both wrong. Some of the installations seemed way more inspired and deliberate than others. Which brought me to this. Seems to me the value of an artist, and the value of the art, is its ability to articulate something specific. I don't think that abstract, random, and lo-fi means untalented. The raw talent lies in the mind that envisions the final product. Perfecting the means to get there varies in importance, depending on the medium. But as a spectator, you have to give it a chance. If it evokes something for or in you, then it's done its job, even if you can't necessarily spell it out.
So there. Bam! I've cracked the nut that is modern art. Anything else you need explained? (No chemistry questions, please).
