Justifiable aversion to art shows

[Steven Sweeney]

I'll follow your lead, Lon, revisiting at the end of this long dark night.

Warhol is long, long gone. Let him go, and release too all the teachers who supposedly kept us from enjoying classical art. They're dead, and of no further use to the anti-modernist cause. Going after Warhol is like refusing to visit Germany next year because that's where Nazis were a long time ago.

There's a breathtakingly inspiring outdoor sculptural museum not far away, here in Taiwan, which happens to feature an indoor gallery that includes Warhol's Mao-tse-Tung works (not unlike his Marilyn Monroe polytych). It's brilliant, and entertaining, and even funny. I so much enjoyed seeing it in person. When's the last time you toured an exhibition and walked out and said "That was fun!"?

I also saw, three weeks ago, a very accurate, representational depiction of Mao at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, where the government killed its own citizens for having beliefs and sensibilities other than those authorized by the central committee. It was a perfect likeness, but there was nothing brilliant or enjoyable about it.

I hope we have different sensibilities here about permissible expressions of the creative impulse.

[Jim Riley]

Let me now say, Cynthia, after pleading the continuation of this thread, that any discussion and attempts at defining "Art" should be another thread and I would hope that it would start with something more considerate than a definition from Andy Warhol. (said in what context?) (Where would this forum be without dragging up nonsense?) I am not recommending we do launch a new one, by the way, for many reasons. I fear a functional bias as evidenced on this thread and don't think it necessary in the discussion of art shows and judging. As Tammie suggested, even science can't be pinned down and is subjected to periodic review of "truths". How many "Salons" over the years have tried to nail down art definitions and proceeded to stifle the inevitable changes so characteristic of our trade?

I did not say or insinuate, Lon, that all Christians are part of the KKK. There was a little tongue in cheek in my comment intended as another dig on my part to those who are so quick to characterize a large part of the art world as having less virtue than the rest of us. I really did not intend to get down to the "snot", "evil" and "crap" level.

And, at the risk of being tiresome and seizing any opportunity to question input, here are recent quotes that seem argue your own point:

10/28/02 "I do not demand that you believe the gospel, even if you ARE condemned if you don't"!

10/29/02 "I don't condemn people who are not believers, either. It is not my Gospel, and I am not the Judge".
(?)

Robert Henri and John Dewey among other artists/teachers/art philosophers point out that the act of creating a work of art (among others things and activities) involves a connection of the artist with the past, the here and now, and a connection with the future. (Maybe that's why I feel that I know those artists that I admire most and feel a connection) They also note that the artist and his product require a respondent. Someone to communicate with and understand his intention.

Assuming artists regularly attempt to do this (as opposed to or for their own amusement) and an equally dedicated public is open and responsive, why would we assume the public (non-artist) less capable of good judgement regarding effectiveness of the messenger? Why are the customers less able to judge degree of success than the artist/manufacturer?

I believe it somewhat arrogant that we think we can better discern our ability to move or inspire our fellow citizen.

In short, I would argue the need or merit of having trained artists as judges (nor would I rule them out). It could be argued that any given artist would be biased regarding style, subject matter, media, technique, degree of difficulty, etc., and give these more consideration than effectiveness of effort. In fact, I have heard artists say that it might work against them, if, as a for instance, a portrait painter judged an open show and favored portraits and/or on the other hand, be more critical of that which he has greater knowledge.

I think it not fair to assume good judgement and evaluation art skill/abilty related. A flawed analogy perhaps would say that the diner without cooking skills should not judge the food.

Otherwise shows would be faced with finding the very best artist to judge shows. And can you imagine the difficulty finding one equally skilled at all subjects, media, and styles?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Back party to the point!

I used to think non-artists were capable and good judges. Then over the years I've walked through museums, art shows, and chatted with more than a few of these non-creating art folks. All wisely defer to actual practicing painters.

Furthermore, everyone has prejudices...some folks are in denial and some are not. Better the art judges have informed and learned bias.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Picking up where Tim has left off