Chapter two

Chapter two

What is Art?

Is art really anything that we want it to be, or are there qualifications that must be met in order for something to be considered a work of art? Let me answer the question plainly: Some things that are called art are not art at all. They are just things on a wall or a pedestal in a museum or gallery. A hammer is not a work of art. It is a utilitarian object designed to drive nails. Placing it on a pedestal under plexiglass doesn't make it a piece of sculpture. Visual art is created for the purpose of being a work of art. Found objects may certainly be displayed in order to make a statement, but the act of displaying the object is a work of (performance) art, not the object being displayed. I recently read that Marcel Duchamp's Urinal was voted the most influential work of modern art of all time, whatever that means! In case you aren't familiar with it, in 1917 this man took an ordinary urinal, signed it, and put it on display as a piece of sculpture. It was not a work of art, sculpture or otherwise. It was still just a urinal. Now, had Duchamp made some kind of social comment? Yes, of course. Had he created a work of art? Not even close. If I find a dead 'possum in the street and place it on a dinner plate, can I call myself a chef? Are you going to look at it as the fools who look at Duchamp's "art" and say, "Maahvelous, Daahling!"? I don't think so. But what if it was something that he actually created?

Many works of art are, by definition, "art", but just not very good. For example, Mose Tolliver's art is art, but it is very bad art. Just because he is a nice man who does the best he can, doesn't mean that what he is making is good. My Daddy was a nice man, too, but his paintings were awful. Look at it this way: If you went to a ballet or an opera and saw people who performed exactly as if they were 3 years old, would you rave on about how quaint the performance was? I don't think so. Why, then, do we think that adult art that looks as if it was done by a 3-year-old is so wonderful? Why can we see the point so easily as it applies to performing arts but not when it applies to visual art? Is the aforementioned 'possum-on-a-plate food? Yes, you could survive on it. Is it really bad food? It is horrible food. How, then, do such awful pieces of "art" receive such wide acclaim?

It happens in the same way as in the tale of the emperor's new clothes. If people can be intimidated into denying what their common sense tells them is true, then virtually anything can come to be regarded by the masses as legitimate. I believe that in the story, it was a child who first blurted out, "The emperor has no clothes!" Just like the people in the tale who were afraid to say what was obviously true out of fear of reprisal, people today try to make themselves believe that Duchamp, Tolliver, Pollock and others like them are great artists because to say otherwise will make one seem ignorant. What, you might ask, motivated people in the first place to begin calling junk "art"? It was simply a spirit of rebellion against what was seen as an oppressive set of rules governing art. I can certainly understand some of that. Actually, this rebellious spirit didn't begin with the Impressionists in the late 19th century as many people believe. You can see that kind of thing throughout European art since the Renaissance. Caravaggio was chastised for using ordinary-looking people as models for Biblical subjects. Vermeer declined to blend his colors, choosing instead to leave large chunks of white in the highlights. It was those who followed the Impressionists, however, who carried this rebellion to extremes. I love some of the Impressionists work. In some cases, though, I consider painters such as Manet to be mediocre in ability. His Luncheon on the Grass was rejected for the same reasons that I would have rejected it: It isn't a very good painting. Warhol, on the other hand, is a very bad joke. Yes, he hung out with another famous freak named Michael. But at least Michael could sing and dance. And then to top it all off someone is going to try and tell me that a urinal is the most influential work of art of all time? What am I supposed to believe, that all these people are just really smart and perceptive and I’m just dumb? Somebody’s stupid all right, but it’s not me!!