email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
In today's (11 Apr 2011) West Australian, reporter Gareth Parker writes of "revelations its [Art Gallery of WA] Peggy Guggenheim exhibition attracted barely half as many visitors as the target set in its business case" (Art show failed to bring in crowds).
Is anyone surprised?
The Peggy Guggenheim collection is famous. It is also rubbish.
The exhibition at the gallery was not trying to attract "visitors". It was trying to attract paying customers. Why would anyone pay to see rubbish? You could visit your local primary school open day and see better art. And it would be free.
Have a look at a review by someone who paid money to see the exhibition. Or just read one paragraph:
For example... Have a look at the Enchanted Forest... It's by Australia's favourite scam-artist, Jackson Pollock. "In Enchanted Forest Pollock opens up the more dense construction of layered color ... by allowing large areas of white to breathe..." And he, "reduces his palette to a restrained selection of gold, black, red, and white." Why not just say, "He was running short of paint and time so he spread the paint quickly and thinly."
Is this really good art?
Is this art? Well, yes. I'm happy to believe that art is whatever you like to call "art".Paint a portrait of a couple of breeze blocks, call it art, win an art prize. No worries. Spill your paint on the floor. Get angry, throw down some more paint. Realise that you have called yourself an "artist" therefore this is not a mess, it's "art". Sell it for millions, no worries.
But is it "good" art?
How -- or why -- do we decide that art is "good" or "bad"?
Did you know that art appreciation is a means to get more sex?
A man is driven by the urge to pass on his genetic material. This is done via sex. The more power the man has, the more sex he will get, the better the chance that his genetic material will survive.
Possessions indicate power. The first cave men showed a big club to impress the first cave women. Then we invented money. Early men showed that they owned a lot of money, to impress early women. Money still attracts sex, though we may show our possessions -- bought with money -- rather than the money itself.
How else can we demonstrate our manly power?
Really powerful men use the power of their money to buy the services of other men. Really powerful men -- really rich men -- are so powerful... that they can afford to sit around all day doing nothing. Unfortunately, doing nothing does not look very powerful.
You've heard that "knowledge is power"? So what? Anyone can gain knowledge... Or can they...
What if you are so powerful -- that you can invent your own knowledge? You define that knowledge. You tell the world what is right and what is wrong -- within your area of owned knowledge. Think of the power!
Consider the "art critic": An art critic tells everyone else which art is "good" and which is "bad". If too many people gain the same knowledge -- the art critic can change the "standards" for art appreciation. What power! Think of all the sex that can be gained with that power!
A small number of men have the money to buy the time to listen carefully to the "logic" of art appreciation. This small number of men demonstrate their money -- their power -- by demonstrating their knowledge of art appreciation. The ability to "appreciate" art demonstrates a man's power.
Art appreciation is a means to gain the opportunity to pass on a man's genetic material.
Unfortunately... art appreciation is not a means to honestly evaluate art.
Men who have the power and the money to "appreciate" art have declared that the Peggy Guggenheim collection is "good" art. Let's hope that this did, in fact, gain them plenty of opportunities for passing on their genetic material. (Or, perhaps not.)
But the collection is still rubbish.
Art "critics" and art "appreciators" may measure the collection against their secret standards. Real people say, why bother? it's rubbish!
There is no surprise that real people stayed away.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment