Art Is As Art Does

Many artists are capitalists just like the rest of us.  They produce a product that they hope to sell at a gallery for as much as they are able.  They profess to creating their art strictly as social statement, in hopes of getting an emotional response from the viewer.  But there is no art without the sale; I can't name a beneficent patron since the Medicis.  By naming a piece and hanging it in a gallery, as opposed to a craft show at the county fair, I am assuming they have elevated themselves to artist status.  Yet when one does have an emotional response that doesn't agree with the artist, it may very well be inappropriate to state your feelings at the showing.  I guess it is rude to criticize a person in their own home.  But if they are truly an artist, why is it okay to provoke the public yet be offended when they provoke back?

I was at a gallery opening tonight and one of the pieces was named "image of a thought".  The piece, by itself was pleasing and technically well done.  But by giving it this title, the artist was attempting to elevate his piece above a mere painting and into a cerebral social statement about human thought.  Why should we, the art viewing public just accept this at face value?  There was absolutely nothing about the image that invoked this construct.  He seemingly made it up to enhance an illusion of profundity.  You can argue that I don't agree with his interpretation of a thought but by that reasoning I can draw a picture of an atom and call it a molecule.  I wish I had taken a photo of the piece but I can attempt to describe it.  It was basically an outlined pastel colored square with subtle shadings and a few drips running down the bottom.  That's it.  Really.  First and foremost, human thoughts are not linear like a square.  They are  dendritic and convoluted, like a tree or bolt of lightening.  Maybe the nuanced shading represented the nuance of a thought.  Even if you don't subscribe to the idea that our thoughts are bound to the physical structure of the brain and its synaptic network, it just seems imperceptive to declare a thought a symmetrical geometric figure.  That is what confounds me. Art is not art just because the creator says so.  And I don't think we should let them get away with it if they are hanging it on a wall in hopes of selling it.  If this artist would have let his piece be, and not given it a thought provoking name (pun intended), I would have complimented his sophisticated sense of design.  But he chose to step into a higher realm of philosophical abstractism and thus insert his piece into the arena of criticism.

My frustration is misdirected because I never did get a chance to discuss my thoughts with the artist.  If he were present, I certainly would have told him my opinion.  It is my view that if you are going to open the door,  I am going to barge right in.  Instead, I was forced to unleash my criticism on another artist at the gallery with whom I happened to be acquainted.  I should point out that her art can be quite provocative (a Barbie on a cross, with dead beetles sprinkled around for good measure.  I am not making this up).  So I assumed she could take a harsh critiquing.  As I held forth on my view, she slowly began to back away in obvious hopes of ending the conversation.  Tammy said it was my attitude, not my point, that dismayed her.  Perhaps.  I can be a mean drunk.  I did have a few drinks, the cabin being so conducive to a cocktail hour and all.  I don't want to have to go to an art gallery and whisper my opinions in fear of offending the artist.  It might not be art if someone isn't offended.  Art is art only if it is profound.  Otherwise it is just crafts. If you are going to sell your art as political statement, be prepared for the consequences.

This is a thought

This is a thought

This is even a thought

This is not a thought