Recently, I’ve taken to snapping photos of my favorite art pieces whenever we peruse the museum. They allow no-flash photography, which helps me since I only get to visit about four times a year. I used my cell phone to take a picture of Van Gogh’s “Stairway at Auvers” today. A guard was standing nearby and seemed to care little that I was blocking other people’s space so that I could achieve the perfect shot.
From there, my sisters, Mom, and I went upstairs to look for a “Photography on the Streets” exhibit. Instead, we found the postmodern art show “Currents 103” with Claudia Schmacke. Her pieces are not like George Caleb Bingham’s or Georgia O’Keefe’s; they’re media-centered pieces, artwork that utilizes DVD projections and other forms of “new media” to astound her viewers.
One such piece, “Time Reel,” involves “long, looping tubes filled with green-colored water that moves through them powered by concealed pumps” (SLAM website). It reminded me of an installation that Matt created in the Humble Bean involving tubes and hot tea and, seeing as I’d been snapping pictures all morning, I lifted my phone to take another shot.
“Excuse me, ma’am,” said a guard in the corner, “You can’t take a picture of that.”
I didn’t really need a photo anyway (it was too late anyway; I’d already taken the picture), but his proclamation that I couldn’t take a picture angered me a bit. So, I can take a picture of Vincent Van Gogh’s “Stairway to Auvers”—his paintings are easily worth millions of dollars these days—but I can’t do the same for a display of bubbling water and tubes?
To give Schmacke credit, she has been trained at and is currently a faculty member of Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, a very prestigious institution. And perhaps my aesthetic sense is not as advanced as others may be. But, I am still of the opinion that many art museums are placing modern and postmodern displays on a higher level than they should be. “Works of art” such as swirling water in a tube or burlap stretched into an octagonal canvas are hanging on walls that used to be the home of Baroque, Impressionistic, or even Pop art.
I went to a German restaurant with some new friends later tonight. Our conversation eventually trickled down to art, and I asked Kelly and Faith their opinions of modern art.
“I don’t get it,” said Kelly. “I don’t understand that glass display they have at the museum, and it really gets me that some people call that art.”
Faith agreed for the most part. I commented that I thought that some modern and postmodern artwork actually pushes people away from the art world—the so-called “philosophical depth” of pieces goes right over the heads of the new viewers. But such is the predicament of all art forms—James Joyce had that with “Finnegan’s Wake,” and I’m sure there are countless concertos, etc. that do the same. Artists might point out that they aren’t trying to please the masses but are instead trying to express themselves artistically or for any number of reasons.
This debate could go on endlessly, and it has for years. Thoughts of Aesthetics at Dordt come to mind on this topic, and I thought about that while I was standing before that security guard with a look of mild indignation on my face. I was just shocked that it came into play in my art museum with two such different art pieces.
3 comments:
Been thinking about this since you started raving about that rent-a-cop. First, it doesn't make any sense at all that cell photos aren't allowed - they're insignificant enough to keep, or share, for a quick reference. But the discussion on modern/postmodern art is interesting. What's "better" or a more effective means of expression, what's more art-worthy? In this case, various pigments smeared on a canvas, or tubes of water hung up on the wall? You're going to murder me now for calling Stairway to Auvers pigments smeared on a canvas, but that's what painting is.
So what about modern art then? A Van Gogh piece is astounding behold, even more with some context, but could it be that we've all been raised with an understanding of what ART is (supposed to be)? Van Gogh, da Vinci, Michelangelo... take a step "forward" to Matty's favorite artist Alexander Calder... take another step to Claudia Schmacke? Modern artists aren't trying appease the masses because Michael Bay, Danielle Steele and Thomas Kinkade are already doing that. Also, they're all feeding their audiences soma, and they suck. Modern artists often have enormous egos and pretentious, esoteric concepts, and there should be (I think) a notion of considering/respecting your audience, but aren't they trying to advance and expand art? If so, isn't that good for us?
I don't necessarily agree that modern artists are trying to expand and advance art. I personally don't see that calling water that runs through tubes a work of art should be allowed, but I'm old-fashioned that way. I am starting to think more and more that I do believe that art should have a sense of "beauty" (oh, Seerveld would kill me for saying that) and purpose in it. As we talked about in Aesthetics, art was begun as just another trade: paintings and sculpture were meant to enhance and potentially beautify a patron's home to begin with. I do think that there is a great deal of genius that comes through great works of art, but I also think that a lot of modern artists place more value on the genius than the produced art itself. To me, that's somewhat of a tragedy. Artists shouldn't be so egotistical, and museums shouldn't support such art, in my opinion.
Post a Comment