Here is a picture showing a few pieces by Jeremy Moon (as best as I can tell) hanging at the Albright Knox art gallery in Buffalo NY. I ask of you, are these pieces art? According to the Wikipedia entry,
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.
By this definition, these pieces are certainly art. My question for you is, should something like this be displayed in a gallery? And furthermore, what possible meaning could these pieces have? It seems to me that the only purpose of these pieces is to be paid. I am a cynical person, but the one in the background with the gray canvas with X's painted across it seems like something that I could do. It feels to me like an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewer. Like, "look at this! It is art! It means something incomprehensible now pay me!" What do you think?
Probing...
ReplyDeleteI'll try to answer some of these questions...if I can...
1. Should the works be displayed in a gallery? Well, only by the Gallery owner's consent. Who are gallery owners? Do they necessarily 'dictate' or state: 'this is art', therefore it is? Hmmm. There again, the gallery can only exist (economically, critically) if viewers view the works... Or else it's an autocratic institute or canon.
2. What meaning could these pieces have? Well, by public awareness (exhibiting) - the works get viewed and such questions LIKE YOURS get asked and attempted to be answered... Is there an Artist's Statement present at the gallery? This might help understand the artist's intentions...but here's the rub: does art need explaining?
3. Payment... HELL YES! Art is either a hobby, for some - or an actual (serious or not) career! Why not get paid? But by how much and WHO dictates this according to WHAT MARKET? (Check out the writing's by Bill Drummond, ex KLF member and serious artist - who asks the same questions of art, while still making art)
4. "...seems like something I could do." One hears this ALL of the time...THEN WHY DON'T YOU!?
5. Cynicism is good...as a tool for critical thinking or inquiry. Vital tools when considering more to life than just Art... A word to the wise: beware though of the negative repercussions, when adopting a cynical stance
6. "wool over the eye's"? Hmmm... Sometimes, by lots of artists (who i consider somewhat more sophisticated OR NOT, than our friend Mr. Moon. One only need think of inflated fecal matter, for instance...) Sometimes, sometimes not. Some people are actually both serious about art as well as making the stuff. But by 'taking the piss' or trying to baffle say - are they not poking at and revealing perceptions of art (market, theory, perception, reception, making - the whole gammut!)?
[shudders]
7. "Like, 'look at this! It is art! It means something incomprehensible now pay me!' What do you think?" Erm...sort of. Some art NOT ALL is incomprehensible, sure. So, what, we're going to just write them off like that? Without attempting to try to understand what it is about (the piece or body of work)? Maybe there's more to it, than just colour, line, composition, form, just paint on a canvas...though I strongly suspect there's little to go by, according to Mr. Moon. But he's, surely, a mere 'drop in the ocean'?