Art, and the nature of art
Mar. 14th, 2005 04:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninevirtuesSo, as a hardcore nerd, my education has been heavy on the chemistry, biology, anatomy, and biomechanics. Alas and unfortunately, that leaves out art, music, and literature. I feel the lack.
I couldn't give a fart about literature. I just don't care. But art, now. It intrigues me, because I just don't understand it.
Take, for example, a long-ago trip to Vienna: We ducked into a church famed for its relics and found... two complete skeletons of saints, decoratively jeweled (as in, gems set into the bones), dressed in spangled and attractively arranged scraps of red velvet, and lying on their sides, hands propped on heads like gruesome bathing beauties from the 14th century.
Okay, I get that. They are relics. Someone did that to them as an act of piety. In other words, the artist or artisan wanted salvation.
Example 2: As we walked outside on the pedestrian strasse, we came upon a large stone monument that looked like a tall column of whipped cream with random, small angels and cherubs protruding from it. When we looked at the dedicatory plaque, we found that the city had been saved from plague in 1620, and the city fathers had erected this... thing... in thanks to God for sparing them.
Okay, again, completely understandable. The object was to thank God. I get that.
Example 3: Further along the strasse, we came upon some Modern Art: 1' tall concrete blocks, piled in the strasse, seemingly randomly.
Okay, I just don't get that. I mean, why put that there? To get people to trip attractively?
Fast forward to Now, and last night's date. On the way to the Old Market (Omaha's restaurant-and-funky-shop district) we passed concrete structures that looked like large, mutant nuts... the sort that would go with large, mutant bolts.
"What the heck is that for?"
"I think it's supposed to be art."
"Yeah, I know, but what's the POINT? Someone put that there because they get something out of having it there. But, in the grossest sense, what?"
We walked around the Old Market and found an art gallery with the usual assortment of contemporary art that I just don't get.... splatter and stripe paintings, small statuary made of found objects, paintings with no discernible subject.
"I mean, seriously. I still don't get it."
"What if the artist solely wants to make you think, or change your opinion?"
"Ohhhhhhhhh, I get it."
The rest of the gallery contained some very expensive art. Hmm, in looking at art, perhaps the point is that it looks pretty, or it inspires thought, or changes opinion. Okay. But I have no way, personally, to tell good art from bad art or to know what monetary value to place on a particular piece of art. You would think that good art would cost more, and bad art would cost less; you would think that you could tell, by looking, what was good and what was not. But it's just not so. (Thomas Kinkade or Jackson Pollack, anyone? Not that I'm biased...)
We found a restaurant. One hour wait. (I think not.) Walking along, we passed an antique store. Hmm, these look more like garage sale finds than antiques.
"So, years ago, my family bought a horse for me and paid $1500 for it. We showed the horse a lot, I rode him, he was okay. We sold him for $3500. The value of the horse did not intrinsically change; in fact, you could probably argue that he declined in value as he got older. But we were able to sell him for more, solely based on reputation and presentation and the way he performed after I rode him for a few years. I'm wondering if art is like that... its price is determined by reputation and marketing buzz, not by the intrinsic quality of the art."
I couldn't give a fart about literature. I just don't care. But art, now. It intrigues me, because I just don't understand it.
Take, for example, a long-ago trip to Vienna: We ducked into a church famed for its relics and found... two complete skeletons of saints, decoratively jeweled (as in, gems set into the bones), dressed in spangled and attractively arranged scraps of red velvet, and lying on their sides, hands propped on heads like gruesome bathing beauties from the 14th century.
Okay, I get that. They are relics. Someone did that to them as an act of piety. In other words, the artist or artisan wanted salvation.
Example 2: As we walked outside on the pedestrian strasse, we came upon a large stone monument that looked like a tall column of whipped cream with random, small angels and cherubs protruding from it. When we looked at the dedicatory plaque, we found that the city had been saved from plague in 1620, and the city fathers had erected this... thing... in thanks to God for sparing them.
Okay, again, completely understandable. The object was to thank God. I get that.
Example 3: Further along the strasse, we came upon some Modern Art: 1' tall concrete blocks, piled in the strasse, seemingly randomly.
Okay, I just don't get that. I mean, why put that there? To get people to trip attractively?
Fast forward to Now, and last night's date. On the way to the Old Market (Omaha's restaurant-and-funky-shop district) we passed concrete structures that looked like large, mutant nuts... the sort that would go with large, mutant bolts.
"What the heck is that for?"
"I think it's supposed to be art."
"Yeah, I know, but what's the POINT? Someone put that there because they get something out of having it there. But, in the grossest sense, what?"
We walked around the Old Market and found an art gallery with the usual assortment of contemporary art that I just don't get.... splatter and stripe paintings, small statuary made of found objects, paintings with no discernible subject.
"I mean, seriously. I still don't get it."
"What if the artist solely wants to make you think, or change your opinion?"
"Ohhhhhhhhh, I get it."
The rest of the gallery contained some very expensive art. Hmm, in looking at art, perhaps the point is that it looks pretty, or it inspires thought, or changes opinion. Okay. But I have no way, personally, to tell good art from bad art or to know what monetary value to place on a particular piece of art. You would think that good art would cost more, and bad art would cost less; you would think that you could tell, by looking, what was good and what was not. But it's just not so. (Thomas Kinkade or Jackson Pollack, anyone? Not that I'm biased...)
We found a restaurant. One hour wait. (I think not.) Walking along, we passed an antique store. Hmm, these look more like garage sale finds than antiques.
"So, years ago, my family bought a horse for me and paid $1500 for it. We showed the horse a lot, I rode him, he was okay. We sold him for $3500. The value of the horse did not intrinsically change; in fact, you could probably argue that he declined in value as he got older. But we were able to sell him for more, solely based on reputation and presentation and the way he performed after I rode him for a few years. I'm wondering if art is like that... its price is determined by reputation and marketing buzz, not by the intrinsic quality of the art."
