Beyond Babedom

We're (way) over 40. Deal with it.

Lick My Id

I love art. After all, I married an artist. But I’ve gotten over trying to pretend that I enjoy some of these “modern” or “contemporary” artists (keeping in mind that “modern art” dates back several decades). I mean, really, does anyone really think  Jackson Pollack is a genius? Personally, I think his work competes with anything a 5 year old could do, but that’s just my opinion.

Which is exactly my point. I don’t like Pollack, I don’t especially like Kandinski, and when I read the descriptions/critiques that art critics/museum curators blather about these guys, I used to think, “Am I just not getting it?” Now, I think, “These guys are full of sh*t.” For example, Kazimir Malevich is known for one piece that shows a square divided diagonally, one half black, the other half white. Art? Really? Looks more like a game of dominoes. Or his famous “Black Cross” that we saw in the Pompidou Center. Better yet is his “Black Circle”:

It is utterly selfless and anonymous yet distinct. It is a dense emptiness, or full void. It is atmospheric yet it has little air, and it does not suggest sky. It does not envelop or squeeze the rectangles, rings and lines. It is ready and available but not transparent. It is not open or closed but both at the same time. Some white shapes nestle inside it. Most shapes stick to it. Nothing is trapped. Everything seems held yet free. Shape and whiteness are different but they never struggle.”

It’s a freaking black circle!

We also saw a hanging snow shovel (really) and a bicycle wheel mounted on top of a table. These artists have simply gotten lazy or run out of ideas, in my opinion.  And I’m not afraid to say it.

Yes, some modern art takes some thinking to appreciate; even Gary’s surrealistic stuff doesn’t appeal to everyone. But a hanging snow shovel? When I read the description of the piece, I thought I was looking at the wrong thing. I wasn’t. Apparently, this artist  “was not interested in what he called “retinal art” — art that was only visual. ” You’re telling me.

My point is, now that I’m pretty comfortable with myself and  my opinions, I don’t really care if art snobs look down their noses at me.

Hey, if Sylvester Stallone can be known as an art genius, anything is possible.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 5:29 PM and is filed under Social Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. Ellen Bereza says:

    I wholeheartedly agree. For the longest time I, too, thought I just didn’t get “it”. I realize now that I actually did get it. Most of these so-called artists and the critics who write the bogus outlandish remarks about their pieces are laughing all the way to the bank, I guess. I would like to put out my own painting that I will call “silence”. It will be a blank white canvas. Do you think it will sell?

  2. Fred says:

    Wow, we agree again. Jackson Pollack was nothing more than a well connected drunk. I always thought his paintings sucked.

  3. Rick Poling says:

    oh you are so right on about Pollack

    if you go to MOMA, and go up the spiral you’ll see 2 paintings.
    Each is about 10′ x 20′, one is black and one is white.
    Someone should tell them it’s not a painting but a black/white canvas

  4. Pat Wright says:

    I know art is supposed to be subjective but I have NEVER understood why paintings of simple circles and squares is not only considered art but also command such high prices! I don’t really like Jackson Pollock either, but his “splatter art” to me is far more interesting than shapes any 3 year old could paint. I’ve seen paintings by chimpanzees that are better than that.

Leave a Reply

Feed Shark