I seriously want people to answer me
I had the opportunity to go to the Museum of Modern Art in New York City last week, and it was great. I have only been there once before when I was 12 so I didnt remember that much. A lot of the stuff there I liked very much, and at the same time I was extremely baffled by a lot of the stuff too. We started with the art galleries since that was what ?? and I were most interested in. The very first painting we saw was a Jackson Pollock. I seriously dont get how/why that is art. Okay, fine, it can be called art since art is an extremely broad term. But what I really dont get is why his works are considered so significant and important. I know he would stand in the middle of his canvas and fling paint everywhere and that his paintings have an "anarchic spirit" and madness which is so important, but I dont get it. I could have made those. Sure, nobody ever did what he did before, but so what?
A lot of the other pieces there were equally retarded. For example, there was a 2 by 4 painted a pale pink. This was it. What is that supposed to be? Why is it in one of the most famous museums in the world?
A lot of the gallery reminded me of 4'3'' by John Cage, and all other works of art/music where its all concept and no content.
4 Comments:
Oh, Jaya, I totally feel the same way. Sometimes I think I'm incredibly stupid because I just don't instantly grasp the meaning, and other times I think I'm one of the few to notice that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
I'm sort of two minds about the whole thing. I mean, I think there's something to be said for the idea that putting something in a gallery and calling it art, even if it's something that you wouldn't really think is in any way artful, like the Duchamp urinal thing. At the time, it had never been done and it was confronting people with this object in a high art setting, and that's really interesting and valuable. But, there's a point at which everything just gets really wanky and lame (hello, pink two by four). I don't really GET Jackson Pollock, but I saw one of his paintings in person somewhere and it was impressive in its "anarchic spirit", but honestly, I was willing to look at it differently because it was a Jackson Pollock, and someone decided that that is important. And that's kind of where I get stuck, like, I don't understand who makes that decision, and whether a painting is any good if no one understands it?
any bullshit that, like, a 4 year old with no artistic talent can do is NOT ART imo. i hate things like the pink 2 by 4 or paint spackles on a blank canvas, or a pile of garbage metal glued together and called "eden" or some nonsense.
ps it's august... about time for your monthly blog post... ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home