Yesterday I found out I'm extremely bothered by conceptual art. Not the concept or even the pieces per se, but I find myself reluctant to acknowledge it as art. The thing is, art used to be not only a piece of work, but the entire idea that came behind it. And not even behind one piece alone, it involved the way the artist saw the whole world. It was an expression of a completely different way of seeing things. You could look at a work of art and try to see the world through the artist's eyes.
It wasn't only about technique and craftsmanship, it was a way of living. A way of life known only to the author of said art. And as an spectator one's sole job was to try to admire that way of life by looking at the works.
Yet today, people (or so called "artists") have the nerve of bending a rusted steel bar, throwing it on the floor of a museum and have it called art! Seriously! I don't doubt that to the author itself it is something very profound and meaningful, but to the eyes of the beholder it's nothing but a half-bent piece of metal. And on top of that it takes no talent, nor skill to do it!
I'm sorry to take him as an example, I know many people admire him but... Ladies and gentleman, exhibit A: Mr. Damien Hirst. Medicine stands were good, creative, new... But could someone please explain to me how the use of dead sharks and formaldehyde qualifies as art? And I am not critizincing the materials (I know a girl who makes paintings out of human bodily fluids, and they're awesome, grose...but awesome). The fact is that Hirst isn't creating anythig anymore, he has an "art" factory. He says, I quote "...at the time I am in the process of creating approxiimately 400 works of art.". Whatever it is that means to him...
All of these makes me wonder how what to me are real artists would feel about this. Take Warhol - not that I think he would even remotely care about all this, but still... Campbell's Soup cans weren't just a painting that he happened to do well, it was a way of expressing how he conceived our entire reality. There was a theory, an entire ideology that gave birth to that particular piece of art.
I was majorly amused by a piece of news I came accross not too long ago: There was a conceptual art exhibit at a certain European - I think - art museum. Amongst the pieces where a couple of ready mades. One of them included some old raggs dusted with quicklime and some trash thrown on top or around it. Well, the museum's cleaning crew acutally thought it was trash and threw it away while performing their daily chores. Who can blame them? I agree.
Remedios Varo had a story that went with each one of her paintings. Characters who live in an alternate surreal dimension that she created. That is the very core of art, creating something out of a vision so unique that while we observers can accept and admire it, will never fully understand. We'll just stand in awe.
If you look at one of Salvador Dali's paintings, you will notice the proportion, concept, and even technique are not what some people would call accurate. But this is exactly why Dali was an artist. It wasn't about his art. It was about his way of living and his vision of life. And the artifacts this vision produced.
Bottomline is: I think that it is one thing to have a random object (or group of objects) mean something to you personally, but it is a completely different one to have it called art, exhibited in a museum, and sold as such...
I probably rambled a lot. Hopefully not all of it was senseless.
