[Valerie Gudorf]

A recent statement by Sharon got me to thinking about the aesthetics of contemporary art. She noted that many people mistakenly believe that contemporary art cannot be aesthetically beautiful. I had made a somewhat disparaging remark about the "East Coast Art Establishment"."My Bad", as the teen like to say---Ha-ha!

I must have conveyed the wrong impression. I've seen a lot of beautiful and striking examples of Contemporary Art. My point was that, much of what garners the highest Praise in the Art world seems to go out of its way to be, well---ugly. The Art Renewal Center, a website dedicated to the "gospel of Classical Realism", expresses much more eloquently the sentiments I was trying to convey, but I'll give it a shot. So much of modern and contemporary art strikes me as pompous and downright pugnacious in its insistence on being "confrontational".

I don't believe that strong polictical views should be off limits in art, but I do resent that some art seems to derive its value solely on its ability to be politically insulting. I also resent it when someone's wounded and twisted inner child, luridly expressed on canvas is lauded as the vanguard of high art. The definition of art seems to fall along such a sliding scale nowadays, that the Columbine massacre was dubbed "performance art" by some.

When a work has to be justified or explained by the use of intellectual pycho-babble, I believe it is the art equivalent of "the Emperor's new clothes". Too many artists fancy themselves as being members of "the intelligentsia", who must educate the ignorant masses (i.e., those of us who did not go art shcool and minor in art history) with condescending verbiage. The end result is that much of what passes for art nowadays alienates the average viewer and engages in a kind of artistic incest.

I was wondering what some of you feel about the state of art today. Since this is "The Cafe Guerbois", I hope it will result in lively and engaging repartee.