...For the same reason that Thomas Kincaid is a businessman and not an artist, Shaquille O'neill is a basketball player and not a real actor (or a rapper for that matter). These people are in the entertainment industry and do not enter into an art historical context or any other legitimate art context.... No more than a t.v. weatherman, a politician, or a sports personality would. Kincaid and Ross may be touchstones in people's minds because of what they represent, but that does not make what they do of any significance to art in a broader sense. They are on T.V. They are in the malls of America. The exchange value of Art is not equal to entertainment. The exchange value of Art is not equal to shopping.
What do the episodes of "Joy of Painting", a videogame about those t.v. episodes or a new line of products by Thomas Kincaid Co. symbolize? Where do they lie in our minds and the minds of the public?
They represent a failure to explain, to teach, or otherwise "clue in" the public about the importance of art. It's up to School and Museum educators to do their job of explaining the principles of Art that are being supported by their contemporaries; that is the curators, critics, artists, and historians in the field of the Arts (which includes Contemporary Art!) or students will be left in the dark without a clue and will be thinking that Bob and Thomas are the real deal and not the souless capitalists they (and the agents they employ) really are. Don't laugh! These guys actually have confused a lot of people into thinking that what they do is making art. It is NOT. It is selling a product wrapped in the sugar plummed fairy art land that never was.
People have the wrong idea about what art is and have not been educated to think that art is anything more than just pretty pictures. That's why they don't except, understand or feel accountable for comprehending the Art that is being presented to them in Museums, Galleries, and Biennales all over the world today.
"That's not art, my kid could do that." or "what is it?" and "I don't get it" are not acceptable responses to art. Students could be better prepared to understand and be equipped to respond to the works they experience in a museum. Teachers can make that happen.
In today's increasingly visually centered world, a lack of visual and "seeing-the-big-picture" education is bad. And can have serious consequences for the educated public (and for future artists too!) Educators play an important role in schools because they introduce students to new concepts and standards that are widely excepted and used by the public. Mathematics, Earth Sciences, the Native Language, History, etc. The problem is that they don't teach Art as a class to analyze, interpret, and "decode" visual signs.
It is important to be able to understand what images mean.
It is important to learn how to interpret images that are presented to you.
It is important to recognize that images are telling you something (usually a few things).
It is important to know how images are used to make you think a certain way.
If the students don't understand what they see they lack skills in communcation and end up looking like fucking assholes.
Sure its okay to say "I don't like Modern Art", but do you know why you don't like it? Do you understand what Modern Art is trying to tell you? If you had a better understanding of it do you think that you might learn something about other people? about yourself?
---------------
I realize I'm sort of preaching to the choir, but... oh yeah I almost forgot! What I meant before in my reply to Pete's last post about "someone" else missing their mark. I meant artists. Artists need to address the institutions directly, be critical of their motivations and other artists that ignore their role as the eyes and ears of the culture. We are aware of things going on in the culture which deserve wider attention by these institutions, and this blog supports a very healthy dialog about these issues (Gooooooo... Astromen!). I would make an argument that if there is an intelligensia or an avant-garde today, that they exist in forums like ours!
O.K. with that, I'll get off my soap box and let others have a turn.
2 comments:
Respectfully, I disagree. Neither you nor I nor any museum curator have any monopoly on the definition of art. Art is subjective. It is meant to be subjective. If I like Bob Ross as a painter then so be it. If you can't stand him because he completes landscape paintings (that millions enjoy) in 30 minutes or less - well, that's your prerogative.
My real issue here though is your character assassination of Kincaid and Ross. I am not going to do your homework for you but I suggest before you shoot from the hip, you find out more about these artists and what they did with their fame. I think you will see that, especially with regard to Ross, these are the type of people we want to be famous.
Just hang yourself.
Post a Comment