Thursday, August 02, 2007

Pretending To Be An Art Critic

Am I the only one who thinks most modern art is just a convoluted dare? Like artists just keep trying to put out a more audacious piece of crap before someone actually has the guts to say "This is crap" without fear of being labelled a philistine. Which maybe I am, but wow, a trip to a modern art museum will really remind you how much you hate most modern art. And such began my day at the Hirshhorn.

The worst thing is you never know if you can sit down. Is that chair a chair or is it a "work of art"? Or even better, as turned out to be the case, both?

The big attraction was the work of Wolfgang Tillmans, a fairly talented photographer who appeared to have some rather interesting early work, got told how great he was, and then proceeded to believe his own hype and put out miles of pretentious bullshit. The tables in which he simply pasted other people's articles on AIDS and the Iraq War was the most heavy-handed and frankly, ridiculous.

And when did art stop being "pieces" and become "installations"?

I don't care. I'm a philistine. Wolfgang Tillmans sucks. Give me the National Gallery of Art. They have a neat exhibit right now on avant-garde photography of Central Europe between 1918 and 1945 and it's, you know, good. So its not modern art I hate, its apparently post-modern art I hate. Especially modern sculpture. But after I spent the morning looking at Rodin's works, everything pales in comparison.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, my dear cousin, it's contemporary art that you hate. "Modern art" is a term generally used in reference to works from the late 1800s until the early 1970s -- Monet, van Gogh, Mondrian, Picasso, even your precious Rodin. I think the differentiation starts to get fuzzy when the expressionists come along in the 50s (think Pollock), with Warhol et al. as the endcap in the 70s.

I personally like most modern art. I have great appreciation for its uniquness, ingenuity, and tangible personality. However, just because Rothko made brilliant on the colour studies doesn't mean every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a go.

Contemporary art, on the other hand, is often contrived and pretentious. Take the infamous crucifix in a jar of piss, for example. There is no way in aich eee double hockeysticks you're going to get me to agree that there's anything good about that. Provocational, yes. I think that's the point, really -- visual expression meant to elicit a reaction in the viewer. And, in that respect, it remains art, however unaesthetic.

I'm not saying contemporary art is well done, or that I necessarily like it (although that chryselephantine statue of Michael Jackson does amuse me, but that's because I'm a Classicist and get the joke), but I have to respect it. Besides, they'll revoke my museum education license if I don't.

Just for fun, cats-n-kits, google Istvan Kantor.

Poseur said...

I did admit it was post-modern art I hate. And the Piss Christ was perhaps the worst instance of recent art because it was just such an obvious attempt to simply offend people. And that's just the cheapest form of expression. Sure, it causes an emotional response, but in the basest way.

I liken it to scaring people in a horror movie with loud bangs. sure, people jump instinctively, but it's not because of quality craftsmanship on the director's part. It's a cheap scare.

And, to be fair, I really like Willem de Kooning. And he had about two rooms worth of stuff in the Hirshhorn. And I do like how Max Ernst always pops up. And, of course, Rodin has two rooms in the National Gallery and 25 pieces throughout the Hirshhorn, if you count his works in the statue garden. But Rodin is a badass.

I'm cursed to like art that was considered cutting edge 50-100 years ago while I think cutting edge art now is crap.

Anonymous said...

I did admit it was post-modern art I hate.

Indeed, and it's called "contemporary" art. I was merely providing updated vocabulary.

And that's just the cheapest form of expression. Sure, it causes an emotional response, but in the basest way.

Like I said, it's not necessarily good. And perhaps I should clarify that my point about... the point... concerns art as a whole, and contemporary art as our specific topic of conversation, not the jar of piss. The point of the jar of piss continues to elude me because you're right, creation purely for shock value is worthless.

And if it makes you feel any better, I'm "supposed" to like this stuff... and much prefer my art old and crumbling.

Anonymous said...

My then-wonderful husband (now "evil ex") and I were in a "contemporary" art museum in Paris. We came across an exhibit that was basically a sandbox with plastic unbrellas & flowers poked into the sand. He looked at it and said, "If I can do it, it ain't art." He was right about some things!