gail sheffield on thu 7 oct 99
------------------
Another blow to the dead horse we've been beating.
I have no idea why I am writing this=3B I do not usually get involved in =
these
kinds of discussions, i.e. =22good=22 art or =22bad=22 art, because nobody =
ever seems to
influence anyone else, but the subject has, for some reasons, bombarded me
lately from all sides, so I will respond. First, the good/bad continuum =
(not
dichotomy) is not relevant to the Brooklyn Museum controversy, as that is a
matter of whether taxpayer funds should be used to display art most people =
find
offensive. Nor is it a matter of censorship or suppression of the right to =
free
expression. I have not seen the work, but cannot help but suspect that it =
is
considered =22serious,=22 =22good,=22 =22meaningful,=22 (or whatever =
adjective you want)
only because he uses the elephant dung. In the context of good/bad art,
however, I do believe the art world in general has, in recent decades, =
gotten
things backward. Because I am an artist (on the mediocre part of the
continuum), I am quite aggravated by what I perceive to be the case. By way=
of
credentials for my opinion, I offer that I like modernist art and I dislike
Thomas Kinkaide (a wonderful example of the principle that good technique =
does
not equal good art). I also can admire work which I recognize as =22good,=22=
even
though not to my taste. Nor should there be unanimous opinion as to what is
good or bad. Art should not be deemed good or bad simply because it is
offensive, bizarre, different, carries a social message, etc. But the art
literati seem to have turned that on its head and believe that if it is =
those
things, especially if it is shocking, offensive and carries a (preferably
obscure) powerful message, then, it is automatically good art. If there is =
no
bad art, then there is no bad writing, no bad acting, no bad dancing, no bad
piano playing, no bad singing, ad infinitum.
I do believe, or at least hope, that future generations will look on =
some of
the stuff which is revered today, like the Emperor's new clothes, and wonder=
how
otherwise intelligent and creative people could be so deluded as to pay =
homage
to such foolishness. Is an artful arrangements of interesting (or
uninteresting) objects an =22installation,=22 or just interior decoration. =
One of
the current artistic =22triumphs=22 which I find most ridiculous is the
much-applauded work of U.S. artist Ann Hamilton at the Venice Biennale--4 =
white
rooms with bright fuschia dust (or powder) cascading from the ceiling onto =
the
floors. The walls are covered with braille, and an audio tape plays the =
artist
whispering Lincoln's Second Inagural Address spelled out in the phonetic
alphabet. Add more of the same kind of stuff. All this for a mere million
dollars. This is, as Time Magazine calls it (admiringly), =22the trappings =
of
America's high-end art culture at the end of the century. . . .=22 Well, =
since
there can be no bad writing, I can get away with an apt cliche, =22gimme a =
break=21=22
Gail Sheffield
Covington, LA
| |
|
