A few years ago I attended an art show at the Museum Of Modern Art. Many of the works in the show were not readily accepted when first premiered and we see repeatedly through the history of art that there is a reluctance to accept new styles and ideas. Why is a work that is revered today found so threatening in its own time? What is good?
Most people will say they have good taste and they can tell good art from bad art yet so many times so many people are proven to be wrong. I believe this is because to judge something as being good, you need to compare it to something that has already been established as being good. We learn good and bad just as we learn everything else but when it comes to art, we have a big problem. To be good, really good, in art, it must be original. By original, I mean that it must seem authentic, to have been created by someone who has the authority to have created it. A lot of this is purely illusion. We want the lessons we’re taught by looking at a piece of art to be from someone who intimately knows his or her subject. A painting of suffering must make us believe that not just the subjects portrayed, but that the artist himself, knows suffering first hand.
In Modern art, the artist is as important, if not more important, than his or her subject, style or technique. To be original, truly original, seems like the most difficult thing in the world. In fact, it would seem to be impossible to be able to do anything that doesn’t instantly call to mind someone or something that has come before. Except if you realize that original is the same as personal. Then the element in your work that’s viewed as derivative becomes simply influences and is acceptable. To be original is, by definition, to be different and that means to be different from that which has been accepted as being good. Therefore, work that is new and original has a very hard time initially being accepted as good. How could it be good? If it had enough of the established conventions to be readily considered good, it would probably be considered derivative and hence, not good. The fact that many of the Modern Art pieces in the show were at one time considered shocking, even though they may have been nothing more than geometric shapes, shows the power that comes from pulling the rug out from under some peoples’ believe system.
There are many people who criticize art by saying “I could do that!”, but the fact is, they couldn’t do that. Even if they could physically apply the paint to the canvas the same way, they couldn’t in a million years think to do it and if they did think to do it, they wouldn’t do it anyway because they couldn’t think beyond what they’ve been brainwashed into believing is right or wrong or good or bad and a truly original thought would instantly be rejected.
That’s my understanding of Modern Art. But I could be wrong.
Most people will say they have good taste and they can tell good art from bad art yet so many times so many people are proven to be wrong. I believe this is because to judge something as being good, you need to compare it to something that has already been established as being good. We learn good and bad just as we learn everything else but when it comes to art, we have a big problem. To be good, really good, in art, it must be original. By original, I mean that it must seem authentic, to have been created by someone who has the authority to have created it. A lot of this is purely illusion. We want the lessons we’re taught by looking at a piece of art to be from someone who intimately knows his or her subject. A painting of suffering must make us believe that not just the subjects portrayed, but that the artist himself, knows suffering first hand.
In Modern art, the artist is as important, if not more important, than his or her subject, style or technique. To be original, truly original, seems like the most difficult thing in the world. In fact, it would seem to be impossible to be able to do anything that doesn’t instantly call to mind someone or something that has come before. Except if you realize that original is the same as personal. Then the element in your work that’s viewed as derivative becomes simply influences and is acceptable. To be original is, by definition, to be different and that means to be different from that which has been accepted as being good. Therefore, work that is new and original has a very hard time initially being accepted as good. How could it be good? If it had enough of the established conventions to be readily considered good, it would probably be considered derivative and hence, not good. The fact that many of the Modern Art pieces in the show were at one time considered shocking, even though they may have been nothing more than geometric shapes, shows the power that comes from pulling the rug out from under some peoples’ believe system.
There are many people who criticize art by saying “I could do that!”, but the fact is, they couldn’t do that. Even if they could physically apply the paint to the canvas the same way, they couldn’t in a million years think to do it and if they did think to do it, they wouldn’t do it anyway because they couldn’t think beyond what they’ve been brainwashed into believing is right or wrong or good or bad and a truly original thought would instantly be rejected.
That’s my understanding of Modern Art. But I could be wrong.
