Reply to "I can do that too" when looking at art in museums

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to ""I can do that too" when looking at art in museums"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There's a textile art exhibit up right now. Technique-wise, I can do a lot of what I saw there, because that's my job (though if you were to ask me to paint you a picture of it, I couldn't, even to save my life.)

The thing that makes it art isn't always the technique. It's the process (pollack), the environment in which the artist created the piece (ai weiwei), the narrative story behind the work (Mark Bradford's "Pickett's Charge" jumps to mind, but all art has a story), the time invested and what the artist missed to devote that time/energy to the work...

People saying "I can do that too" out loud in museums are probably either trying to sound important/cool, or having a tough time relating to the work(s) on display. Neither is a good look. 
[/quote]

NP. If you need a BFA to understand certain art, then what does that say about the art? It becomes precious and intellectual. It also becomes separated from your visceral reaction and emotions.

I suppose we could debate whether art should elicit emotions. And whether accessibility is a valid criterion. We could have the same debate about some modern orchestral music.

As an aside, I don't believe that every piece of "art" comes with its own suitcase of process, narrative story, and/or the artist's blood, sweat and tears. Some art just seems...uninspired. I agree this is less true of art that makes it into a museum, but it does seem more true about some of the art on the walls of my local coffee shop.

On the other hand, I remember a lecture at Penn about the Philly art museum installing a Rocky statue on those grand front steps. The prof concluded that it spoke to people, so it was a good thing and might even bring more people into the museum. I guess I agree with that, especially if you take the statue as embodying all the (fictional) struggles and aspirations of the film. [/quote]

Believing that it's "precious and intellectual" is a reaction based on your emotions/interpretation of the piece, the artist, and the concept of the value of art.

When the art seems "uninspired", it can be a reflection of the viewer.[/quote]

By your logic, I should be inspired by every single art piece. I am not. No one does. [/quote]

No, you don't need to be inspired by it. But if you're reactive to it and feel a need to judge it and put it down, that's a whole response, and it's about you, not necessarily the art.[/quote]

When is a response to art not about the individual?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics