'Forty-Two', said Deep Thought with infinite majesty and calm (from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams)
When it comes to art appreciation, I confess I am a layman. To me, a painting represents something - landscape, people, still life, etc. I should be able to look at the work and recognize what I am seeing and understand what the artist is trying to convey. I can decide whether I like it or not without going through elaborate analysis. Depending on the subject, the work may also evoke certain emotions in me. Seeing a brilliant sunset on canvas may remind me of sunsets I have enjoyed and put me in a calm mood.
Abstract art on the other hand is something of a closed book to me. I am left scratching my head and wondering what exactly the piece represents. It is like being given an answer and having to guess the question. In 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', the computer (Deep Thought) works out the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything to be 'Forty-Two', but there is just one problem. No one knows the exact question to which 'Forty-Two' is the answer. That sums up what abstract art is to me. I have the work in front of me but I can barely guess what it is about.
All this is not to say that I am dismissing abstract paintings or abstract sculptures. Some of them do hold a certain passing interest. They seem to be puzzles to be unlocked. So I turned to that patient online teacher, our version of Deep Thought, wikiHow, to get some pointers on appreciating art (https://www.wikihow.com/Appreciate-Abstract-Art). In a few simple steps it told me how to go about it. In fact, it has three different methods. The first tells you to look at the work from a distance and then up close, clear your head of negative thoughts, take deep breaths, wear headphones to block out exterior noise, etc. It seems to me you must first take a course in meditation before looking at an abstract painting. Maybe, it will make you angry and frustrated otherwise?
Then there is the advice to do some research on the artist and learn his life story to understand where he/she may be coming from. Why not attach a little bio with each painting then if that's relevant? The third way arrogantly recommends that you clear your head of all notions of what you might consider art because an outsider can only have an incomplete view of the art world (then why bother displaying art to the public?). It even challenges you to 'try making one yourself'. At this point, I feel that this is too much work to put into this. I will accept that there is a lot of hard work and thought put into the works by the artists. But does it mean that I have to like it or go to a lot of trouble to learn to 'appreciate' it?
A recent news item made me ask whether there is even a limit to what can be considered art. An art piece called 'The Comedian' by Maurizio Cattelan sold for $120,000. 'The Comedian' was a banana duct-taped to a wall. No, the banana was not made of gold or precious stones. It was just a regular banana. Apparently there were three such pieces displayed and after two of them sold for $120,000 each, the gallery raised the price on the third to $150,000 to be sold to a museum no less. The initial price was fixed so as to not trivialize the work and at the same not also be outlandishly high (!). And what are you supposed to do when the banana ripens and rots? You just buy a fresh banana and tape it to the wall. All good.
I am truly puzzled. I mean I can get a banana and some duct tape and put it up on my wall any time. But then I did not have the idea to put it up in a gallery and attach a 'non-trivial' price tag to it. This article on the topic really made me roll my eyes. According to the writer, 'Nobody gets to define what isn't art, and "The Comedian" is absolutely art'. Apparently, the fact it generated so much chatter is good enough reason to consider it even 'powerful art'.
It gets better. Someone ate the $120,000 (or was it $150,000?) banana displayed at the gallery saying it was 'art performance' and even named the video 'Hungry Artist'. What did the gallery do? They just replaced the banana, of course. They said, 'He did not destroy the art work. The banana is the idea'. The fact that they did not even charge the guy but just bought another banana and taped it to the wall speaks volumes to me as to how serious this work really is.
Is this what art has come to? Or is this kind of an 'Emperor has no clothes' moment? What do I know? Like I said, I am just a layman.
When it comes to art appreciation, I confess I am a layman. To me, a painting represents something - landscape, people, still life, etc. I should be able to look at the work and recognize what I am seeing and understand what the artist is trying to convey. I can decide whether I like it or not without going through elaborate analysis. Depending on the subject, the work may also evoke certain emotions in me. Seeing a brilliant sunset on canvas may remind me of sunsets I have enjoyed and put me in a calm mood.
Abstract art on the other hand is something of a closed book to me. I am left scratching my head and wondering what exactly the piece represents. It is like being given an answer and having to guess the question. In 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', the computer (Deep Thought) works out the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything to be 'Forty-Two', but there is just one problem. No one knows the exact question to which 'Forty-Two' is the answer. That sums up what abstract art is to me. I have the work in front of me but I can barely guess what it is about.
All this is not to say that I am dismissing abstract paintings or abstract sculptures. Some of them do hold a certain passing interest. They seem to be puzzles to be unlocked. So I turned to that patient online teacher, our version of Deep Thought, wikiHow, to get some pointers on appreciating art (https://www.wikihow.com/Appreciate-Abstract-Art). In a few simple steps it told me how to go about it. In fact, it has three different methods. The first tells you to look at the work from a distance and then up close, clear your head of negative thoughts, take deep breaths, wear headphones to block out exterior noise, etc. It seems to me you must first take a course in meditation before looking at an abstract painting. Maybe, it will make you angry and frustrated otherwise?
Then there is the advice to do some research on the artist and learn his life story to understand where he/she may be coming from. Why not attach a little bio with each painting then if that's relevant? The third way arrogantly recommends that you clear your head of all notions of what you might consider art because an outsider can only have an incomplete view of the art world (then why bother displaying art to the public?). It even challenges you to 'try making one yourself'. At this point, I feel that this is too much work to put into this. I will accept that there is a lot of hard work and thought put into the works by the artists. But does it mean that I have to like it or go to a lot of trouble to learn to 'appreciate' it?
A recent news item made me ask whether there is even a limit to what can be considered art. An art piece called 'The Comedian' by Maurizio Cattelan sold for $120,000. 'The Comedian' was a banana duct-taped to a wall. No, the banana was not made of gold or precious stones. It was just a regular banana. Apparently there were three such pieces displayed and after two of them sold for $120,000 each, the gallery raised the price on the third to $150,000 to be sold to a museum no less. The initial price was fixed so as to not trivialize the work and at the same not also be outlandishly high (!). And what are you supposed to do when the banana ripens and rots? You just buy a fresh banana and tape it to the wall. All good.
I am truly puzzled. I mean I can get a banana and some duct tape and put it up on my wall any time. But then I did not have the idea to put it up in a gallery and attach a 'non-trivial' price tag to it. This article on the topic really made me roll my eyes. According to the writer, 'Nobody gets to define what isn't art, and "The Comedian" is absolutely art'. Apparently, the fact it generated so much chatter is good enough reason to consider it even 'powerful art'.
It gets better. Someone ate the $120,000 (or was it $150,000?) banana displayed at the gallery saying it was 'art performance' and even named the video 'Hungry Artist'. What did the gallery do? They just replaced the banana, of course. They said, 'He did not destroy the art work. The banana is the idea'. The fact that they did not even charge the guy but just bought another banana and taped it to the wall speaks volumes to me as to how serious this work really is.
Is this what art has come to? Or is this kind of an 'Emperor has no clothes' moment? What do I know? Like I said, I am just a layman.
