I found this watercolor on Craig's list. Is it possible to say this work is not very good? What if it were hanging on a wall in the Gagosian Gallery with 30 other like size pieces in the same style? Maybe with a pile of stuff on the floor in front of it? The other day I was reading a survey of various art philosophies and one caught my eye as the prevailing view of the art elite. Art is an artifact made to be viewed in an artworld context by an educated art audience. Though this thinking is self-defining, hopelessly circular, it seems to be accurate. In the right context this watercolor would be in the Saatchi Collection. Does any one believe anymore that there is something intrinsic, essential, almost transcendent, in a work of art? Is it all just completely relative? I do believe thousands of words could be deployed in justification of this painting as "Art". Too much art today requires extraneous explanation to be considered existentially valid, a thing in itself.
I've seen plenty of paintings in prestigious galleries and in the well-known museums that, in my opinion, were not worth the space they take on the wall. This definition you found does seem to be accurate minus the 'educated' bit. So, yes, it is all very circular. And a lot of it is crap, too. You elude to this in your last sentence.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important that the Art Priesthood be properly educated in order to oversee the disemination of the tenents of the faith. Just as the Bible proves itself so goes "Art".
ReplyDelete