May

7

Still Beating Art.

Posted by Christopher Waldrop

May 7, 2008 |

While tearing down modern art seems to be a regular occupation, it’s rare that I see an article praising a work of contemporary art. While there’s plenty of modern art that deserves to be torn down, the problem, I think, is that critics realize they’re leaving a vacuum in their wake. The recent flare-up of outrage over Aliza Shvarts’s work—supposedly a series of self-induced miscarriages, although it turned out to be a hoax—is typical with a lot of gnashing of teeth about decadence and depravity, and some nattering about where, if at all, artistic lines should be drawn. It’s easy to stand in front of a work and say, “Well, I could do that,” but it’s hard to explain why a work appeals to you. And it would be just as easy for me to say that negativity makes better copy than a positive response to a work of art, I think it’s more complicated than that. For one thing outrage is a form of attention, and attention drives the economics of art. Good or bad a widely-talked about work of art can fetch a higher price than one nobody’s heard of. Consciously or not critics are supporting a market for outrageous art.

Another possibility is that criticism is being driven by the idea of art divided into discrete periods—the Romanesque, Baroque, and Rococo periods followed by Neo-Classicism, Romanticism, Impressionism, Fauvism, Pointillism, and the 20th Century’s dizzying run of –isms. While it has the advantage of simplicity, it’s also misleading, causing us to judge any work of art by how different it is from the past, and how well it fits into whatever the current –ism is, which, for a long time, could be called Outrage-ism.

Professor and painter Laurie Fendrich, who teaches at Hofstra University, has started writing a series of posts about aesthetic taste, and whether taste can and should be taught. A statement she makes about the tastes of freshmen is part of what prompted me to think about the emphasis on the negatives in contemporary art:

If college students have any opinion about art, it’s usually that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dalí are two great artists. Those who have “advanced taste”—i.e., have taken AP art history—love Van Gogh’s Starry Night. Only the rare bird likes Cézanne or De Kooning.

Look at the examples she chooses as both negatives and positives: Escher (1898-1972), Dali (1904-1986), Van Gogh (1853-1890), Cezanne (1839-1906) and De Kooning (1904-1997). I’m not criticizing these artists for being old, but note that Fendrich doesn’t mention anybody newer than De Kooning, who, even though he only died in 1997, did most of his major work before 1970. Can you name a living artist whose work you even know, much less like? If you can then that’s good. Wouldn’t it be nice if a single work by that artist got the same amount of attention as works that prompt shock and outrage?

As a final thought, check out a linocut by blogger Marlina. Titled “Eddy’s Pets Are In Heaven”, it’s very stylized and dynamic, almost abstract, reminiscent of Sumerian or Akkadian hunting reliefs, but there are no hunters here. The title gives the work a surprising contrast of humor and a little sadness without being sentimental. She did it as a student, and it stands to me as proof that aesthetics and craftsmanship are still being taught. There is still good art being produced even if it’s often overlooked.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

<< Post Navigation >>

« « Is Green Universal? | Where No One Has Gone Before. » »