On Art

Recently, I took one of those "self-improvement" classes that someone occasionally suckers you into. One of the things that I was taught was to, well, purge all old things from your home and essentially "freshen up" a bit. So I did. One of the things I decided to do was to either donate or bury everything that I have had since high school - even things like clothes (which I still fit into - jealous?!?!?!?).

I have also been accumulating books since high school, and I have so many books that I have converted one of my rooms into a library (actually, I admit that I have more rooms that I currently need). One of the books I decided to get rid of is a picture book called "A History of Art." This was written in the 1960's, and it is a product of the 1960's - not the sex-drugs-rocknroll-extremeleftwingpolitics 1960's, but the unheard of 1960's, the smooth, liberal, ultra urbane 1960's that was as very much in place as "the counterculture," but pretty much looked over since those participants are now over 80, and the hippies overtook them in the popular imagination (probably the best known expression of this period is camelot).

I have not looked at it for over ten years - hence the need to bury it - but I decided to take a peek at it. And I started in the back, which was the period of "modern art."

Now, what impression do you get of "modern art"? Bad, incompenently made paintings? Well, one is correct on that score. Of course, the self-appointed vangard of the cultural community thought that this stuff was brilliant, and spent a long time trumpeting it's virtues.

For about 100 years, since approximately the 1880's, a bunch of artists started going away from what one thinks of as art - something that is possible to visualize. One of the arguments was that "painting needed to be rescued from competetion with the camera...that we must look at it, not thru it" (as a painted canvas is a material surface covered with pigments, per the book)Instead, they made things that looked more and more like blobs on canvas. One attribute of art, that many people would agree as a definition, would be "something that I cannot reproduce myself" (and most people would agree that it would have to be a competent person making the item). However, some of this stuff is easy to reproduce, which makes people giggle when they see it.

Some intellectuals, of course, would scoff at what I have to say, stating "he is commenting about something he knows nothing about." They further would state that one needs to be trained to "appreciate" this "art." In the old Soviet Bloc, this is known as "re-education". Everywhere else, it's known as "brainwashing." Sure, someone might get a degree in art history, and you can demonstrate that this is the peak of artistic achievement. And some people also gets degrees in such things like minority studies and women's studies. And when they graduate, the are jobs awaiting them that match their skill levels. The titles of those jobs are "janitor."

Probably the most famous piece is by Edvard Munch "The Scream." I think the best title for it would be "Honorable mention, first grade finger painting contest."

One piece, by Wassily Kandinsky, circa 1913, is called "Sketch I for 'Composition VII'". I call it, "How people will see what I had for dinner shortly after I have consumed an entire fifth of vodka."

Another piece, by Jackson Pollock, is called, merely, "One," circa 1913. No, this is much less enjoyable than the Metallica song. And much less cogent. I call it "A new exercize by dipping a brush in oil and flinging it toward the canvas about 1000 times."

The final piece in this genre is called "Compostion with Red, Blue, and Yellow." circa 1930.
I attempted to copy and paste into this blog, but have not succeeded. Essentially, it can be done on Microsoft "Paste" in about 5 minutes. I call it "The final project of my first lesson of "Microsoft Paste!""

Basically, the elite called it "art," or they might think of it as high art. We don't need the categories of impressionism, post impressionism, symbolism, abstract art, or what not. Another term can easily fit all those categories of "art." That term is "crap".

And not only do I agree, but so does most of humanity. While that jackass on the movie "Titanic" was wrong in stating that Picasso would never amount to anything, at least his sentiments were in the right place (in this instance). About fifteen years ago, Saturday Night Live had a skit where Picasso was in some cafe somewhere, make some scribbles on a napkin, sign his name, and - whammo! - that would be worth money. And once, he sneezed, saw something "inspiring," signed his name, and threw it on the floow - and all the waiters tried to grab that piece of "art."

About ten years ago, some woman in Britian submitted a "brilliant" piece of abstract art. The entire art establishment mentioned how brilliant the work was. One problem. This piece of "art" was actually done by her 5 year old, who had no art training whatsoever.

Probably the best criticism ever given was by Nikita Krushchev. Now, you may disagree with his politics, but even a blind monkey occasionally finds a banana (plus, he very nearly denounced socialism on his deathbed, so he can be forgiven). In a recent biography, "Khruschev, The man and his era," the author mentions a speech he made to a bunch of Soviet artists. He stated to them "[A colleague] told me a couple of days ago that when his daughter got married, she was given a picture of what was supposed to be a lemon. It consisted of some messy yellow lines which looked, if you will excuse me, as though some child has done his business on the canvas when his mother was away and then spread it around with his hands..." I think that Robert Maplethorpe was one of those in the audience. Krushchev further noted "Who painted this picture? I want to talk with him. What's the good of a picture like this? To cover urinals with?"

Around this time, a revolt against the revolting started. And it was started by someone who the left so admires, Andy Warhol. He made "pop art" which was to paint pictures of soup cans. Like Campbell soup cans. Which takes infinintely more competence to do than throwing blobs of paint on a canvas. And have you ever heard of the "minimalists?" They existed to make fun of the above-like art.

Fortunately today, due to the democraticization of our culture thru technological mediums like this one (and radio, and cable, and other), the influence of actual artists is now overtaking those of the garbage the elite so admires. For example, there is a very popular style done by Thomas Kincaid, known as the "artist of light." He is essentially unknown outside of evalgelical Christian circles, or those who do not read publications like Readers Digest. He is a neo-impressionist, but uses lots and lots of light. It is a very positive product that he produces, since really, the only time artists today express themselves positively is when they are engaging in fornication, about to engage in fornication, preparing to engage in fornication, plotting to engage in fornication, or swooning to get audience members to engage in fornication with said artist - for example, see just about every popular song written since 1920.

Of course, Thomas Kincaid will never break into the so-called "mainstream" culture. You see, he is a family man that goes to church. For an artist to go to church, that's sacrelige! For him to break into this culture, he would need to get into chains, whips, and leather, espouse anti-American doctrines, and become a junkie. But then again, if he did those, he would stop producing the work he produces.

Or maybe he will. Rush Limbaugh started as a fringe product in a fringe medium. But after ten years, he became the leading American commentator - whether you agree with him or not, he has more of a following than any other commentator. Thomas Kincade now has imitators - I bought a couple of prints from an imitation artist and have them hanging in my eating area. And, many of his works will end up in a museum. For Thomas Kincade is that good. Unfortunately, his prints fade, but hopefully, he will find a way to improve that. I had never heard of him, saw his works, and walked into a gallery and saw his paintings, and was so impressed, I asked about him, and was told about him. And how many millions of others were so duly impressed, like me, too? The concept of great art is something you think is fantastic when you first see it, and can't get enough. A similar analogy is when I first heard "Smells like Teen Spirit." (Seriously!!!) I thought this song was fantastic. So did millions of other kids, and this launched a new genre of rock into the stratosphere.

Due to the democraticization of American culture over the last ten years, I think that we will see a return to art that makes sense. I further think that art will go back to representing things that have some kind of plausibility - even a man throwing spears at a dragon is more plausible than a blob on a canvas, because we can visualize ourselves doing that, even though there are no dragons. And as sales from actual art vastly overtake the sales of garbage, people will stop producing garbage, and everyone (but a few wierdos) will buy real art again. This is one reason why the intelligentsia hates capitalism - vox populi ultimately gets to determine trends when both the culture and the economy are democratic, not a bunch of snooty, overschooled board members. Remember, it was the cultural elites who were in league with bigoted southerners in the 1950's when trying to stop the rock-n-roll juggernaught.

Let us hope that, in the visual arts, people will buy more impressionist paintings, landscapes, sea photos, coyboy pictures, or anything else where humans can acutally place themselves. Now, if you will excuse me, I have been drinking a lot while typing this piece, there is a canvas, and I need to do something to make some money...