Art & Perception

About a year back a young curator named Chris Gilbert resigned from his job at the Berkeley Art Museum, California over a disagreement with senior museum officials over some ‘politically incorrect’ words that he used to describe the exhibit that he was curating. I am sure that this is old news to all of you, but what got me thinking about one of the functions of art was through reading a contemplative piece in the Times where author makes the following observation: 

Two concepts of what a museum should do — and be — crystallized and clashed, with Mr. Gilbert’s view by far the less traditional. To him, art is an instrument for radical change. The museum is a social forum where that change catches fire. The curator is a committed activist who can help light the spark. The goal is to transform the values of the culture that had created the museum. If in the process an obsolete museum went up in flames, a new one would rise from its ashes.

more… »

 Ok, I couldn’t resist. 

Not only do I love chocolate, but I love good art controversy.  Artist Cosimo Cavallaro has created 6-foot Jesus statue made out of milk chocolate and called it “My Sweet Lord”  or “Sweet Jesus” that was to be put on display this Holy Week in an art gallery attached to the Roger Smith Hotel in New York City.  The gallery director ended up pulling the piece, due to pressure from the public and the Catholic Archdiosese. more… »

We have some impressive mountain ranges in Montana, but this isn’t one of them. Though reminiscent of the Bridgers that stretch north of Bozeman, this is, in fact, a dirt pile. I came across it while cruising through a future subdivision, killing time before an appointment and in a mood to photograph. As a handy subject for the 20-30 minutes I had, it was about perfect.

more… »

Proposed definition of art:

Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level.

Here is Steve‘s reaction:

If so, every snapshot of your boyfriend/girlfriend at a photo booth is art. Every representation of a car is art. Every dog or cat image ever produced by any means is art. The definition becomes so all-encompassing it’s useless.

Why useless? If a photographer or (photo booth) accomplishes the same essential function today that required a skilled artist in the past, why do we need to change the meaning of the word ‘art’? Bread once was produced with intense manual labor. Now it is made by machines. The function of the bread is the same. Why should we change the definition of the word ‘bread’?

The proposed definition of art says that art is what it always has been. If an image of what you find important is made in a photo booth, why is it less art than if it was painted by an artist? Because the artist takes more trouble to produce the image and charges more? If only that were true! But in reality, the photo serves the function of art. Why pretend otherwise? The question of importance is, is that photo any good? Can a painter make something so extraordinarily special as to justify the extra cost? If the painting costs more, it should be because it has something extra to offer, not because of some art brand label.

The power of art, if any, must be in the work itself, not the word ‘art’.

Why do artists create them? Why are viewers interested in them? Is it exhibitionism on one side and voyeurism on the other?  For reasons I can’t clearly explain I’ve never been comfortable with self portraits by any artist.   So that’s what you look like or want me to see about you?  Fine. Thanks. Now go away. I would love to hear from others how they feel about self portraits, their own and those by other artists, any other artist.  At the risk of revealing too much about myself and just how fucked up I am, I’m simply going to express–in a kind of stream of conciousness way–how my own self portraits make me feel.  Uncomfortable (obviously). Silly. Naked. Exposed. Self-indulgent. Egotistical. Awkward.  Embarrassed. Validated (like a parking ticket). On the record.  That’s all I have to say on this subject. Short, sweet and revealing.

more… »

Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level. Making art used to be a specialized profession that required years of training. Today, making art is no big deal. Anyone with a camera can make art; take a photo of your kid, it’s art. It’s that simple.

The so-called Art World has successfully appropriated the word ‘art’ and created a lot of confusion in the process. We can resolve the difficulty simply by recognizing what Art for the Art World really is — a brand label. Let’s call it Art^TM.

The players in the Art World would like you to believe that they are the natural and rightful heirs of a great cultural history. Artists like Michelangelo, supported by patrons like the Medici, devoted themselves to the representation of that which people found important at an emotional level. Everyone knows that the players in the contemporary Art World are not the real descendants of the likes of Michelangelo or the Medici, of course. But the lack of an obvious competitor supports the illusion of rightful inheritance of something important.

Art^TM — that which the Art World deals in — is something that most people don’t understand or like. This is one reason that making Art^TM is generally not a viable profession, despite the huge social effort put into training artists at art schools and universities. People tend not to spend much money on Art^TM, because it does not represent for them anything important at an emotional level. In other words, Art^TM is generally not even art.

What is the real art world? It’s all around us, of course, so ever-present that we hardly notice its presence. Look at the internet, magazines, TV, bill boards. Art is everywhere. Drawings, photos, sculpture — cheap, low quality for the most part, but art nonetheless. We usually think of it as advertisement, or department store mannequin, or porn. These things are more art than Art^TM.

How to be a successful artist today (in the traditional sense of an individual making creative representations for profit)? A daunting challenge, to say the least. Dropping some illusions, distinguishing between Art^TM and real art would be helpful.

The Art World is inadequate to support its people. Artists tend to subsidize collectors. The real art world on the other hand is so powerful that it doesn’t even need to use the brand label. The question I ask is, how can an individual artist be a player in the real art world and still retain identity as an artist?