A good article here by Roger Scruton, although I must agree with one comment that follows it that the meaning of one sentence is obscure.
I have been intending to write about my own conflicted feelings about modern art, after being prompted to think about it by a a couple of visits to the new-ish Gallery of Modern Art in South Brisbane. It's a fine building in a great location, and together with the adjoining Queensland Art Gallery, State Library and Queensland Museum, it's a very impressive precinct indeed. (My criticism of the museum will have to wait for another post, however.)
GOMA pretty much becomes a playground for children during the Christmas school holidays. While many of the activities are fun for them and their parents, their connection to art can be extremely tenuous, to say the least. These last holidays, for example, one installation invited kids to take a quiz on a touchscreen about pretend aliens, with success giving you an alien embassy swipe card. The card activated some video machines sited throughout the building. The videos featured the artist, who appeared to be aboriginal and sounded gay, talking cheerfully about what aliens like, with someone dressed up as a silly green alien dancing around and kids also featuring in the short videos. As I say, fun for kids under about 9, but connection with art? (No kid is going to cotton on to the aboriginal/gay/alien connection which I assume was at least partly its inspiration.)
In any event, as is usual in modern art, even the "adult" exhibits and installations are often more about simply attracting attention to themselves as a high brow concept, rather than displaying particular skill in their creation, or (as Scruton writes) having much in the way of connection with beauty.
The initial reaction can therefore justifiably be cynical. But on the other hand, the "gee, even I could have done that" thought can be taken in a positive, democratising sort of way: everyone can be an "artist" if they think about what they are making and create anything with forethought. It may not be particularly fair that some can make a living out of mere concept separated from any particular skill, but there will always be the unjustifiably rich and successful in the world.
The result is that I find it hard to resent the modern art I have seen at GOMA, and even if I think a particular installation is a waste of space, I still enjoy the ironic amusement derived from wondering how the artist has managed to receive recognition for their dubious work.
There are lines to be drawn, however. I will still object to the outright ugly as a legitimate form of conceptual art. (The dissected animals of a British artist, for example, or the digestion machine designed to make fake human excrement.) Conceptual art can become mere ugly tosh, there is no doubt about it.
But conceptual art in moderation, when it avoids mere ugliness or the incredibly facile, can be kind of fun:
Update: speaking of grotesque attention seeking as "art", the blood cooking guys from England (where else) are on their way to Melbourne.
No comments:
Post a Comment