More Active Posts
Front Page
Art paralysis
 |
 31 Comments |
What is art? It’s not just a question philosophy professors asked confused students. It’s not just a punchline in a graduate seminar. It’s a question that wealthy people ask themselves so they can have a better idea of how much to pay.
Art paralysis: It is a widespread and often crippling malady, striking everyone from the new college grad in his or her first apartment to the super-rich banker, lasting anywhere from a few months to a lifetime. How many are affected is not known, perhaps because the victims are often too embarrassed to come forth. Who wants to admit that “I’ve had these posters since college, I know that as one of the American Top 10 Orthodontists I should get some real art, but I don’t know what that means”? Or that “It’s not that I’m trying to make a minimalist statement with these empty white walls, I just don’t know what to buy”? Or “I walk into those snooty galleries in Chelsea and feel like I just don’t belong”?
This problem is common for the rest of us, too. I know some of us here couldn’t care less about art, or about the world of it, but I kind of feel this latent obligation to have a little art. I’m a believer. I work in the arts. I’ve read all those books about art and creativity and Christianity and how the church needs to embrace the arts and what the Bible says and suggests about art and how art is incarnational and all that. So, I feel like I ought to be one of the few believers on my block to own a little art. But I’m poor. Until I sell the Great American Novel, then, I will have to settle for trading for art. I’ve helped artists write their “artist statements,” and they always give me something small. I’ve gleaned forgotten pieces of art from my poor artist friends. It’s a start.
But if you still don’t know what art is, and you have the money to care, you can do what these people did and get an art consultant.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: art |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Off-key
Many years ago I had a friend who once had taken a class in molten-metal sculpting. You carve a mold, pour melted metal into it and wait for it to cool back to solid.
He and a friend tried to make a bust of a man as one of their projects. They didn’t wait long enough and they pulled the mold away, some of the still-soft metal on the back of the head came away, leaving a gaping hole.
The titled it “The Intellectual Vacuity of Modern Man” and won a competition with it.
Art should be whatever I like. If I’m drawn to a painting, a photograph, a piece of pottery, or a turned wooden scepter, then it’s art to me. If I like it, then there must be at least a few other people who will like it too.
I would never want to treat art as an investment or as a way to show off. It should be a way to make my surroundings more interesting and pleasant for me, my family, and my guests.
Why does this subject always grate on me? As a craftsman/artist, I wish to “arrive” and be known, but at the same time the hoity toity fol-de-rol really rubs me the wrong way. But it’s that high-falutin’ attitude of art collectors and art critics that keep the prices up there… so what’s a guy to do?
“The titled it “The Intellectual Vacuity of Modern Man” and won a competition with it.”
See, now that’s just it. They screwed up, named it cleverly, and fooled everyone into thinking it was “art” when in reality, they were poor craftsmen, and clever marketeers…
If that’s not a classic example of a black-eye on the Art’s and Croissants crowd, I don’t know what is…
My father schlepped us to a lot of art galleries when we were growning up. We always did the architectural tour of a city before we could do what everyone else did–even in Honolulu. My father bought a lot of art, but not as an ivestment. He had to make a connection with it in some way.
So now all my siblings schlepp our kids to art galleries and we think they should be having as great a time as we are (such a lovely family tradition/torture). My sibs and I all have similar tastes in art; it is a rare moment when you can buy art for someone else and they make the right connection.
One of my son’s wants to spend every free moment with an older women. She’s in her 80s and a fabulous modern artist. She is mentoring him. They make a connection in thier art. It’s all about connection.
MIM–and about schmoozing. My dad always said some of the best contemporary atists are starving because they don’t know “The art of BSing the customer.” (sic)
I agree with Kyle.. Art, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Buying something you “think” you ought to like, based on trendiness or trying to appear snooty, seems kind of foolish.
Art is the resourceful application of various media with skill, knowledge and talent to compose a product of aesthetic and/or functional value which at some perceptual level communicates beauty and/or truth.
While I agree that it’s foolish to buy art based on trendyness, and that individual taste definitely varies, I think it’s a slippery slope from there to claiming that their are no objective standards of beauty.
Beautiful: Flowers, Greek temples, sunsets, high cheekbones, the ocean, Shakespeare.
Not beautiful: Potholes, my handwriting, dirty dishes, Camus, modern art.
These standards just come from the way we are wired. I can’t explain it, but it’s foolish to think there aren’t agreed-upon distinctions.
I do computer wallpaper “art” as part of my morning devotional time. See results here.
Modern art can be good, John M. People who look down on abstract art because it’s not a picture of anything are not seeing that beauty can be found in shapes and colors, even when they don’t represent objects.
I’m also not sure that art has to be beautiful. Munch, Goya, Giger and Picasso created work that is not necessarily pretty, but is powerful and says something.
Make It Man at #4: See, now that’s just it. They screwed up, named it cleverly, and fooled everyone into thinking it was “art” when in reality, they were poor craftsmen, and clever marketeers…
That’s true and it was my main point in telling the story. But there is another angle to look at it from: If the work made a point to the viewers, does it necessarily matter that it wasn’t what they intended to create?
I’m with you, Harrison. I would love to buy contemporary artwork, but the price is usually $100 or more, so … it’s a more disciplined decision. I wish I could illustrate my comment with images of a couple works in Chattanooga’s Hunter Art Museum. They are small, fun etchings, not too fanciful. I met the artist at a fair, praised her work, wanted to buy something, but I didn’t. If I made a good bit of money, I’d probably buy art like this. The financial barrier would be removed for me.
Thomas (#6) wrote; “Art, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder.”
Thomas, you were wise to add the word “largely.” I agreed strongly with John M (#8) that there are some objective standards of beauty. Here’s a biblical example:
The woman at Bethany anointed Jesus with expensive perfume and Jesus said, “she did a beautiful thing.” (Matt. 26:10). The disciples failed to see the beauty in her deed. Thus, the beauty of her deed was not in the “eyes” of the disciples. The beauty was there (according to Jesus) in the act itself but the disciples’ “beholders” were closed to it.
So, don’t totally turst yourself in isolation to develop good taste in art and beauty. We can be a bit like the disciples and miss the beauty in our midst. Being a beauty beholder often requires good teachers to help us open our eyes. But also, don’t trust pretentious manipulators (be they professors, curators or art critics) into telling you what you should like. Many of them are caliming that the emperor in his underware is actually wearing fine garments.
THAT is art paralysis.
Be a learner, not a lemming.
I recently visited the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) only to be disappointed. They have obviously spent millions of dollars there to make that museum much worse than it used to be (I used to live near LA over ten years ago and I saw it back then). By and large, the LACMA has become one big expensive hate crime and the object of their hatred is art (in my view).
But then I went to the Autry National Center–Museum of the American West (in the Griffith Park area of LA) and saw the greatest exhibition of contemporary art I have ever seen. Unfortunately, their “Masters of the American West” exhibition closes after March 2 and the works will go to private collections (they were for sale too).
By and large, it remains generally true that good contemp[orary art sells and lousy nonsense art goes to modern museums where mindless “accidental” art, hate-art, and shock-art are all the rage (and yes, they are often victims of their rage).
those snooty galleries
Remember, when you walk into a store, YOU are the customer, YOU are the one with money. If they treat you snooty, don’t spend.
Art is what makes you feel good when you look at it. When you put what you like up in your house, there will always be someone who is critical. Many times, if you go to the house of the person who is critical, and their idea of art is a brightly paint urinal hanging upside down.
Good point RDEAN (#14).
The free marketplace in art has a way of empowering the will and taste of the people (the customers) on the producers. When a transaction is mutual, both parties should win. When government grants fund the arts, the power of the people is diminished and the quality of art tends to diminsih.
“If the work made a point to the viewers, does it necessarily matter that it wasn’t what they intended to create?”
The irony is that the reaction of the audience made the point…
of the title.
Beauty (or things “lovely”) is one of the things about which we are instructed in the New Testament to think, along with whatsoever things are ‘true’, ‘noble’, ‘right’, ‘pure’, ‘admirable’, ‘excellent’ and ‘praiseworthy’ (see Phil. 4:8).
Notice how important the mind is in grasping true loveliness in the Bible. A foolish and superficial approach to aesthetics can get ugly, but in combination with wisdom, beauty (whether spiritual or physical, sentimental or rational, artistic or academic) is well worth embracing and celebrating.
It used to be that art was the tangible expression of the human search for understanding, for God, for beauty, the construct for penetrating the mystery of our consciousness in a universe of splendor and of despair.
So, the poor young artist, starving in his (or her) attic, created things of beauty and terror, things that truly out-lived the flesh that grasped the paintbrush, or held the chisel, or wielded the pen. And so art gave actual form to the desires and longings and yearnings – and terrors - of our immortal and God-breathed spirits, which stir and animate the flesh for only a short time.
Now art is defined by a committee of three experts appointed by the NEA; said committee being composed of 1) an ex-hippie who fried his brain on LSD in the ‘70’s and now can only repeat the single word ‘Woodstock’ over and over and over again while drooling into his belly-button, 2) a radical feminist who wears the pierced shrunken heads of four of her ex-husbands on a necklace and who recently completed her highly acclaimed PhD entitled ‘The Coming Ovarian Revolution; The Eradication of Testosterone-Carriers and the Enthronement of Womyn as the Goddess of the Universe’, and 3) a sort of guy with really bad fever blisters, wearing caked makeup and a pink tutu and an upside down Code Pink button, and nothing else.
That’s Art progress, folks. And you pay for it, too. You really really pay for it.
art is defined by a committee of three experts appointed by the NEA
The must be Republicans. I don’t know any Liberals like the ones described.
Funny how much “Church Art” (Moses, David, Pieta, Sistine Chapel and on and on) was created by those we dare not speak their name.
I SHOULD SO TOTALLY BE AN ART CONSULTANT.
SteveG’s friends’ piece — together with its title — though a “mistake” got people thinking. Art should do that.
I just heard again that Vincent Van Gogh made little money while alive. Yet he continued to paint, as I’m sure others do. Today his stuff is worth millions. It’s not about the money. It’s about how the artist feels and how the public feels when they see it.
RDean, your three experts quote has to do with the controversy of government funded art grants. Remember the crucifix in urine? It was a snarky remark. I suspect the three experts referred to were “liberals.” Why you think no one will dare say the name of Michelangelo is beyond me!
“The must be Republicans. I don’t know any Liberals like the ones described.”
You’re so cute playing your one note fiddle Donato. Why don’t you take up a collection to get a few more strings?
MIM, I’ll make a donation to that end.
“a radical feminist who wears the pierced shrunken heads of four of her ex-husbands on a necklace” and “a sort of guy with really bad fever blisters, wearing caked makeup and a pink tutu and an upside down Code Pink button, and nothing else” weren’t part of my concerto.
Why you think no one will dare say the name of Michelangelo is beyond me!
Because he was gay. Like many famous church artists.
Art is one of the great human made things that gets passed down to future generations - sometimes passing passing the test of time and 2nd law of thermodynamics, like great buildings, great literature (except poetry and Shakespeare of course) and great music. Screen plays and stage plays are considered great literature. But there are few other things that get passed down that are human made.
Since art is one of them it pays to appreciate art and support it if you care about the welfare of future generations adn are generous. While every one’s taste for specific art may different, something that will always be the case, one should be careful not to be too critical of art you don’t like. I prefer abstract art but am not fond of much of it like Agam’s geometrics but my brother in law just loves them. I don’t think he is nuts - just different
Yes, Van Gogh never sold a piece of art while he was alive but did barter it, much to his brother who took care of this mentally ill painter throughout most of his life, on occasion to pay his bills.
Many new forms of art take a while to catch on and not all get accepted by the art world like impressionism did, or modern or post modern did. If you collect, it is best to pay as little as possible and collect what you like - unless you are rich. In order to do this you need to know what is good and new because this will be cheap. Once it is accepted (the art or the producer) you can’t afford it anymore most likely.
You won’t know what is good or new if you don’t participate and educate yourself - or hire someone to look for and get it for you. This isn’t a bad idea when you are starting out collecting because it is a good way to learn. I hire several people on a percentage and have other friends who know what I want and look for me now. They all know, even after all these years, I rarely pay $500 for a piece and usually no more than $300. I used to have a $100 limit for many years and raised it to $200 but this just won’t work very often today.
Get to art teachers at art schools and let them send you photos of the work of their favorite students. This will always be your cheapest art you will buy. High schools are good too because they can tell you who is going to college on an art scholarship and the greatest artists are very accomplished by 18 years old.
You also can actually loan money to an artist that will gladly pay you back in paintings that you like over time.
I am an avid collector and producer of art for over 35 years. I collect better than I produce but my art friends humor me none the less and don’t throw my art away in front of me when I trade it for theirs or give it too them
There is another hint. If you give them one of yours they might give you one of theirs - so being a bad artist has its rewards in the end. I have one quite good friend that trades a painting with me every Christmas as a gift. I know for a fact he loses because he calls me up when mine arrives demanding his back plus postage and calling mine crap (for this audience). It is a tradition.
I enjoy art tremendously and plan on doing nothing but when I retire. I’m thinking of having my modest art collection burned when I die in tribute to one of my design professors. She claimed quite emphatically as a socialist, that there was no value in the end product for an artist but - the process was priceless. I just haven’t decided if she was right about art yet. She wasn’t right about anything else
What about Performance Art? Like the piece where a person jumps up and down waving his arms yelling, “Michaelangelo was gay! So there!” He leaves the room for a while, then returns in a brilliant display of acontextuality to jump up and down waving his arms yelling, “Michaelangelo was gay! So there!”
I think it’s entitled “The Intellectual Vacuity of Modern Man”. And it certainly wins a prize. Of some sort {:~)
Actually Michelangelo was not all that gay at all. Very often, according to historical records, he was depressed and sad. Other times, of course, he was light-hearted and gay and happy. But, overall, like most artists, he had pretty big mood swings between being morose (sad) and happy (gay).
I SURE hope that perfectly decent words in the English language are not being hijacked by groups with social experimentation agendas. That would be so gauche.
Aesthetic poverty may be the most widespread form of poverty in America today. That’s why so many otherwise educated Americans are confused by the word art and don’t know how to think about it or just couldn’t care less. If they understood or appreciated great art, they would care.
From the joyce Wadler article: “One major reason for art paralysis, many experts say, is the feeling that when buying art you are opening yourself to ridicule. ‘Art has always been a barometer of class,’ said Jonathan Santlofer, a Chelsea painter and novelist. ‘If you buy the wrong thing and people come to your house, you’re exposed.’”
I must admit; when I go to a friend’s house (or a n exhibition or a business) and see lousy art, I
sense that something unimpressive may be being exposed in those who selected the stuff. But not always. Still, I don’t say anything, usually, unless I am asked. And I do have a decent and respectful threshhold for many differences of taste (except for when it is nonsensical hate-art or rage-art).
Anyhow, when I see something ridiculous, I don’t always ridicule.
Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa OK
Art paralysis could be an irrational fear. Poor art selection is not the only way to show that you are tasteless. The way you decorate your house, its architecture, how you dress, the music you play, etc., can also be equally good clues.
A person can try to account for all the above by consulting the “experts”: hire an art consultant, an interior decorator, a remodeler, a fashion consultant, etc. But then you run the risk of getting one of those supposedly high class but tragically impractical and tasteless advisors, or one who will recommend only what you cannot afford.
A better approach is to improve your aesthetics. Again, there are choices. You could go for professional training. Or you could apply your mind to the task of discerning what are the earmarks of beauty, what is the science of perception and emotion, etc., and do your own thing.
Of course, you could go further and create your own artwork, totally original and priceless. That is my goal, but in the meantime I do my best with the works of others.