THOUGHTS ON ART
As Told By a Hall of Fame Artist
No Such Thing as Art Anymore
In the spring of 1955, while studying at Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, I attended a lecture on pragmatism, which featured the thinking of statesman philosopher, Edmund Burke.
This lesson has always stayed with me:
"If everything is red, then there is no such thing as red. If everything is art, then there is no such thing as art."
Are we there now? In the recent past, a huge controversy erupted between the then Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, and the Brooklyn Art Museum, over a painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary,” a 1996 collage by Chris Ofili, an award-winning British artist, who rubbed elephant feces on the work.
Elephant feces! How do you go about getting that? Head to the London Zoo. Approach the elephant keeper and ask,“Would you mind if I followed the elephant around for awhile, and take his shit home with me?”
Clearly, the narrow definition that art should only be beautiful is easily rejected by anyone who has taken a little time to learn the basics of the subject. Yet, the desecration of a sacred object must profoundly offend people, which, in the end, does nothing to advance thought or insight, but only instills new hatred.
Now, here’s today’s challenge, randomly selected from a huge collection of stuff: Does Pamela Rosenkranz’s “Pool of Pink-Tinged Water,” at the 56th Venice Biennale, or Pierre Huyghe’s new installation of uprooted paving stones on the roof garden of the Metropolitan Museum of Art – which look like the maintenance crew hadn’t yet returned from lunch – qualify as works of art?
It seems we’ve arrived at the hour when everything is art. Labels, like “Installation” have become marketing catchphrases that masquerade as serious art. (Admittedly, there are these warehouse-size “Installations” that cause some people to say, “Now, isn’t that rather interesting, Bruce?” But mostly, “What the ....?” is often the typical reaction to this ever-growing category of absurdity.)
And has art been further compromised by the idea that the identity of who makes art often matters more than the art itself?
Would a sculpted green apple atop a five-foot pedestal with the label “Apple” directly below it (truly unnecessary signage for anyone over the age of 4), be acceptable to the new Whitney Museum of American Art if it were not created by Yoko Ono?
Certainly, celebrity matters today in so many places in our celebrity-obsessed culture. Curators fully understand the financial need for improving museum and gallery attendance. However, a degree of mature judgement should be exercised in the selection process of exhibitions. Substantive rather than silly should become the essential criteria for admission. On the other hand, you might go broke doing it.
This is not the voice of a formal art purist, a restrictionist who rejects all works completed after Edward Hopper. Rather, someone who appreciates Abstract Expressionism, Surrealism, Pop Art, junk compositions from Found Objects, Graffiti, and Sand and Ice Sculpture. Admittedly, in small doses.
The point is simply that everything today passes as art, which, decidedly, is not true. And without apology, there is no attempt on my part to single out any one person for criticism. These examples fell conveniently into my lap, because at the time of this writing, these artists and their works were featured prominently in recent articles by The New York Times.
Today, the power base has shifted. Art collectors, the most influential force in the art world, along with new museum curators, gallerists, art critics, celebrity artists, and now the internet, combine to determine what is good art and its value in the marketplace. Their collective judgments inspire and shape art in all its forms.
So, maybe now is the time to shout out loud:
“Everything ain’t art.”
Amil Gargano
November 2015
