But is it art?
Last week we went to two art galleries to see what was new. There are very interesting paintings and installations on view at Finale Art File and at Manila Contemporary. Some pieces we like, some we avidly dislike, and some we don’t get at all. The question that kept recurring in the conversation was “But is it art?” As in, “That’s clever, but is it art?” or “I’d buy that, but is it art?” This question demands answers in an era where a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde is a work of art that fetches a bajillion dollars. (“But is it art?” is also the title of a book by Cynthia Freeland which I’ve had for years and must get around to reading.)
Take this arrangement of tables near the entrance to Finale. I thought, “Oh, they must be setting up for the next exhibit.” Turns out the tables were the exhibit. On the tables were laminated price lists from different gallery shows. (When you enter a gallery, there’s usually a table by the door with the titles of the paintings and their selling prices.)
Hmm, a bunch of tables. Is it art? What does it mean? If I put all the tables in my house by the door, is it art? And if I move one of the tables, am I a vandal?
This one I like very much: a photograph of a building covered in netting, printed on a tarp which billows in the breeze.
I’d happily hang it on the side of my building, but is it art? The photographer didn’t construct the building or set up the netting, he just happened onto the site and snapped a photo. Does the fact that people want to own it confer artiness on a piece?
Over at Manila Contemporary on Pasong Tamo Extension, I saw these photographs of a man in a shiny pink suit in various locations in Paris. The photo at the bottom is a “reproduction” of Manet’s famous painting, Dejeuner sur l’herbe.
All together now: But is it art? If you and your friends were to get decked out like German Moreno and pose like the figures in Caravaggio’s The Calling of St. Matthew, would it be art?
This painting I responded to.
But of course I would respond to it, having grown up on the campy Adam West Batman series. It derives its power from my childhood memories. So is it art?
I’ll read the Freeland and get back to you.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
December 20th, 2008 at 22:25
Some of those so-called “art” pieces look pretentious at best! A bunch of tables is just a bunch of tables no matter what Mr. DontLookAtItLiterally Artist and Miss IThinkDifferently Artist would make it out to be. It’s been said that interesting is the word you use to describe an ugly baby. Now I understand what Jessica meant by very interesting paintings and installations.
December 20th, 2008 at 23:40
Tom Wolfe skewered the whole modern art movement in his little book The Painted Word. Camille Paglia does the same for the art movie in a Slate article. (Link here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/08/08/clarkson/index1.html)
The tables installation is so… 60s. They were smoking pot and tripping on acid in those days. It is uninteresting to me. It doesnt evoke any response other than annoyance at the pretentiousness of the whole thing. Same with the photos. And I agree with you about the Batman and Robin painting. It’s cheating.
Maybe Im a fuddy-duddy but I want my art to evoke a, for lack of a better word, spiritual response in me. The old masters always do that. You know there’s something going on in the painting other than the figures in it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 09:50
Such a big, big word to define, Art to me is something that I like to look at and like to experience again and again and again. I expect Art to move me, jolt me, make me smile or squint or stare and stir me to tell someone else to check out what I have seen for myself. It should stay lodged in my memory for a long time. I am currently enjoying 1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die. (Digression: Fully Booked is FINALLY here in Cebu City. Happy happy me! The Hermione Lee bio on Edith Wharton was one of my first three buys.)
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:05
And this is why I love design than Art (with an “A” daw): enough with the highfalutin explanations – keep us in awe or be useful.
July 4th, 2010 at 00:25
They’re not art. Art is creating something original, something that has not been done before, creating it from nothing and yet making people connect with it… that for me would be art.
But then again, there is such a thing as deriving something from other things, which in fairness, can be art