Part of the problem is that it is all so opaque and meta, that you can't really understand what's going on by just looking at a piece in isolation.
Like, Lynda Benglis is known for her feminist sculptures.
Why is this feminist? It's just a lumpy piece of shit. Except you have to know that her contemporaries were predominantly males making really angular lumpy pieces of shit in hard colours (how they got to that point is a whole other story). This has obviously more feminine characteristics in its soft curves and softer colours and served as her rebuttal to the masculinity of the art world. It's like a back and forth discussion in a secret language; they are saying things about their society, but you have to be in the know.
What happens if you try to make the same thing today? Well I guess you'd be full of shit, really.
Warhol and his likes are noteworthy not because of any sort of technical excellence but because nobody in their time would've thought about doing what they did. They were taking the lowest forms of consumer culture and trying to make it into art. Now that it's become accepted, what meaning is there today for you to do what he did? Now not only can anybody paint a terrible soup can, but anybody can think of painting a terrible soup can.
Which brings me to Damian Hurst, who I think is a total hack and people need to stop giving him bags of money for animal carcasses and crystal skulls. I think he derives a lot of success because his works are aesthetically pleasing in a way that many are not. So if you don't really know what the hell you're looking at but want to act sophisticated, why not at least pick up something that looks cool?
That is to say, I think some modern artists are full of shit.
But most of their appreciators are definitely full of shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment