|
|
Mathematicians of either gender have a passion for balls. Colored balls, usually, or numbered balls -- imaginary balls, of course, for they are most useful in thought experiments...
What, you must be wondering, does this paradox have to do with the art? Nothing, really. Nothing to do with art -- but everything to do with "art," a word that has come to mean anything. And therefore nothing. Check the definition of "art" in any dictionary. What a tortured word! A word that means anything means nothing. The infinite approaches zero.Does art really imply beauty? Not necessarily. When my children were young, I tried to give them a framework for judging the quality of art: "Unity, emphasis, and coherence," I lectured.
Today, the eye of the beholder is not to be trusted. If you think you know what's good, you probably don't. Best leave the judgment to others. We beholders are necessarily beholden to an unseen band of angels, the arbiters of taste, who, it seems to me, have none. Whispering in the ears of curators and critics, editorialists and impresarios, their influence is unbounded. Thus is determined, at any given moment, what art is. Which has become anything. And therefore nothing. Not that there is no discrimination. Ironically, the all-inclusive has the power to exclude. Tolerance sleeps with intolerance. If you happen to like Wyeth, you better keep it to yourself. Or Rockwell. The work of neither qualifies as art, according to authorities. Not any more. Mere representation. Distortions and splatterings, now that is art. Someone went to a lot of trouble there: Dipped a chicken in acrylics or something. Don't smirk. Or dribbled dollops of oily colors in the propwash of an airplane. Whoever heard of a brush? Forget stone and bronze, chisel and wax. Accretions of discarded tires and bottles, that's art. Bent pipe, torn cloth, slivers of wood, dented sheetmetal, excrement, anything. Not long ago, I walked into a room at MOCA, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. There were four canvasses, light blue. All the same, except for dimensions. Just blue. Plain, unframed, minimalist, brain-dead blue. And there were people standing about. Beholders. Couples, arm in arm, self-consciously gazing upon the blue rectangles, glancing at their little pamphlets, and nodding solemnly. Not me, people. A logical if unaesthetic light clicked inside my cranium. Somebody has for years been playing crummy jokes on minds like mine. I'll have no more of it. If there is any benefit beyond middle years, it has to be the power of pooh-pooh. Which is what I am determined to exercise for the rest of my days. The issue is not vulgarity: Mapplethorpe versus Adams. The issue is not beauty. Nor quality. They have nothing to do with anything when anything goes. Relevance is irrelevant, too. If you want to make a statement, call a press conference. For me it's the nonsense of art, the non-sense, the nothingness, the anythingness, the baloney. Hey, and the self-indulgence: "I don't try to please anybody but myself." Fine. Go to hell. Not that I won't enjoy the paintings and photographs on my walls. I just won't call them art. They are what they are, paintings and photographs. Which I happen to like, thank you. Music will be music, not art. Sculpture, sculpture; dance, dance. As for those other definitions of the word art: systems of trades and crafts, stratagems and tricks -- no problem. These all have suitable synonyms. "State of the art" becomes "level of technology" or something like that. It takes balls to renounce such a widely wielded word. Or social cowardice. Let there be an infinite number of balls. Or none. Photographic Credits: "Leg Lamp" Jennifer Morse, 2007; "Weekend Splatter" Sunil Gangadharan, Simplistic Art Blogspot; "Van Gogh Landscape" John MacTaggart, Arty Factory; "Maximum Minimalism" [permission pending] Zwirner & Wirth; "Self Portrait" Paul Niquette. |
|
|
|