No really. What is holding these people back? They obviously have the talent and skills needed to really fuck with contemporary youth, but all they're doing is weaving pretty colors back and forth. I don't care to look at something that makes my limbic lobe relaxed and tranquil feeling. I want to look at shit that makes me ralph all over the floor or question my existence or at least have a greater appreciation for the methods used to create it in the first place. I would just rather see art that makes me change who I am. I like the shock value (and I don't mean shitty, underdeveloped shock) in contemporary art. Where is the serious content and purpose?
Some people like this stuff though, either because they suck at making quilts and they get a lot of inspiration out of looking at other aesthetically charged pieces or it reminds them of their dead grandmother or they just have a bland personality. And I know that not all art has to communicate an idea or message. Sometimes just evoking emotion is all that it is about, but for a museum that primarily contains art made after WW2, in an era that concerns itself with questions of what constitutes what art actually is, I expect to see something a little more avant-garde/modern than paleolithic... which leads me to my next point.
I don't know if I want to say this is art. Is it? Yes, the museum says it is. Does that mean I won't argue it? Hell no. Is it modern art? Yes, says the museum, but not really (not to me anyway). I'm aware we have been arguing what art is since the dawn of Greek civilization, and I know that there is no complete definition that clearly categorizes it, but I still have to argue it, especially because I live in a time that characterizes art as being original, transcendent of the literary, or pushing strong social and political viewpoints into the mainstream culture. When I see quilts or blankets hanging on the walls, I think textiles. Industrial Revolution. Cozy, warm, belongs on my bed. This type of work, as a whole, hasn't really developed so much that we can say it's breaking new boundaries or intervening on, manipulating or developing the social structures of our modern world. Shouldn't contemporary art and museums make the public stop in the middle of the sidewalk and ask questions about our morals or ethical principles, our ideas about global warming or baby killing, our addiction to prescription drugs or how we perceive Christ or our mother's sexuality?
Also, gotta love those docents! I just love the way they tell you how to think about art while you're being led around like a dog on a leash! While I personally prefer the Andrea Fraser types, I wouldn't have minded making hot, art-porn with ours either.
1 comment:
hmm, not sure that 'is it art' is a terribly relevant question, although many would argue with me on that. perhaps that question can be replaced by a more engaging, challenging and thoughtful one, though i do understand the desire to ask it. also, may i mention that there is a specific time frame called 'modernism' in art....which theoretically 'ended' sometime about 40-ish years ago (more or less). much of what we saw in the fiber show could be considered 'post modern'. ah post modernism. have you had contemporary art history yet? take is next fall if you haven't, i bet you'll love it. interesting thoughts about that show. i don't necessarily agree with all of what you wrote, but i do love that you have such high expectations for a museum here in bank town usa.
Post a Comment