Once upon a time people went out to galleries, museums, private homes, and lots of other places, to enjoy seeing artwork.
Today people go out to rented spaces, retail shops, and studios to support artists.
In other words, people go out and congregate in places filled with all of their friends to support the work of another one of their friends. The results can be scorchingly bad. Privately, people will admit that they’re weary of having to support the arts, weary of traipsing through one more opening of work that would embarrass a beginning student. Everybody knows it’s become an obligation, rather than a pleasure. These sorts of vanity fairs fail to surprise, delight, or provoke controversy. They’re designed to bolster egos and provide soothing reassurance.
The word “support” makes this party-like activity seem like a good thing, like helping a disabled person cross the street. Or throwing a Tupperware party. But supporting such vanity activities actually neutralizes genuine art-making, and levels the hard work, brilliance, and inspiration of real artists.
Art in the era of digital reproduction has been reduced to so much hobbyism, therapy, narcissism, and social activist reassurance. Instagram, ergo sum.
At these politically-correct gatherings—people come in, and go out very very quickly—there is occasional murmuring about “how lifelike” someone’s painting looks. Well, here’s why: ninety percent of the painting done today (yes, especially by art school, college, and university students) is done from photographs. Now it doesn’t take a genius to realize that given plenty of time to just look and look at a photograph and move a pen or a brush to recreate what you see in a photograph, that you’ll eventually end up with something that looks like the photographic image. (Remember the ape with the typewriter? Given enough time…..Shakespeare’s plays will eventually emerge.)
Is a reproduction of a photograph actually “art?” Or is it simply a second-order photograph? But I digress: many others have already written at length on that subject.
No one will thank me for saying these things. Some of the people who send me email press releases inviting me to come to their opening, will no longer send me those emails. I am not trying to insult anyone. I am not trying to stifle your enjoyment. What you do in the privacy of your own home is yours to do. Knock yourself out. Have fun.
Just don’t call it “art” and insist that we all come out to support it.
When coming to art openings devolves into obligation, you can be sure that genuine art-making has already gone underground. It will never be found in the feel-good daycare centers that have become the reigning personae for what used to be called museums.
Art should create questions, excite curiosity. Not lower your blood pressure. Or worse.
I applaud you, Christina, for calling it like you see it. Are your observations specific to Santa Cruz or do they extend to the greater Bay Area? The foundational skill of drawing seems to have largely fallen by the wayside. Seeing artwork of varying quality displayed in coffee shops or retail stores or the County Building is ok but it doesn’t replace a network of actual galleries, and it definitely does not replace the experience of visiting a world-class museum.
Whatever happened to the concept of connoisseurship? Or even an art appreciation class in high school? Yet now the Internet has made it easy to access the world’s great art collections, often in detailed close-ups. I guess most people have other things they’d rather do.
As Paul Klee said: “Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible.” Yet our visionless, however engaged, art “pretenders” persist and dilute all art in the process. I do heartily, agree, dear Christina, that they are taking up space and time when what we should be doing is to support the scarce, yet brilliant artists we are so fortunate to have in our precious little burb.
Thanks Judi & Melo for your input. Judi connoisseurship went out of art history and practice, as currently taught, when postmodern concepts came in. It is considered elitist to actually point out excellence here, and mediocrity there. It began with Warhol, who essentially opened the floodgates when he insisted that a Brillo box was art. Well, actually Duchamp started it with his urinal. Point being it gave any unskilled enthusiast permission to consider themselves artists.
Melo – thank you for the astute Klee quote. It really is a bit of a bind though, because some of our best friends are among these well-meaning “pretenders.” They know not what they do!
xoxo
C