[Previous entry: "NYC 4: Hangin in the Hood"] [Next entry: "BLINK, - I LIKE IT! (but I don't know why)"]

04/18/2005: "Art Snobs Don't Read This!"

Okay. Why is it that art snobs always talk about art like it's a matter of
life or death?

Is art ALWAYS that deep? Can't a painting, photograph or sculpture simply
be what it is? Does every work of art have to be forced into defending it's
worthiness in the contemporary art continuum? Can a painting of a tree just
be a painting of a tree and not convey some dark, Freudian secret lingering
in the mind of its artist?


I say yes. Sometimes, it's hip to be shallow! (Art snobs are fuming right
now, no doubt.)

I own two GIANT geometric abstracts by a Texas-based artist. I bought them
simply because, God forbid, I LIKE THEM. Okay, I'll fess up. I also bought
them because of their size and I thought that if I got them I would be a
BAD-ASS art collector! There, I said it. Shoot me.

So, there they hang in my living room and dining room, practically covering
entire walls. I don't have any deep thoughts about them. For me, they
simply convey mood. I love them.

Don't get me wrong. I have many pieces that I believe are full of
commentary, but for me, what we're really talking about here is freedom of
interpretation.

Just as artists want to be free to create, I also think art enthusiasts
should be free. If you don't understand the intellectual and social
implications of a work of art, so what? There's too much out there to see
to stress needlessly over what critics say should concern us.

I got an email from an artist who told me once that when he read a review
about his work, he thought to himself (paraphrasing now), is THAT what I was
thinking?

Who says artists ALWAYS have deep, heavy angst when they're creating?

What a piece says can often be found in the actual painting. Yet,
perceptions also play a huge role. Whether we want to admit it or not, our
experiences and prejudices almost always come into play. They often
influence what we think we see.

So, if a painting is profound and moves the masses on every possible level,
GREAT! But, if you're looking at an artwork and your mind is mostly empty,
don't worry. Keep looking. Move on.

Sometimes, it's hip to be shallow.

MICHAEL CORBIN IS A WRITER AND AVID ART COLLECTOR

Replies: 10 Comments

on Friday, April 29th, Roger Licot said

I totally agree with Michael Corbin, just buy a piece because you like it, no matter the meaning behind it (if any) , IF you like it that's all that matters. I have been a professional artist myself for many years, and frankly I do not associate much with many other artists because they think often of themselves as some sort of an elite.
Besides being an artist, I happen to be a Taoist, this explains why I can take all these "art-with-deep-meaning" pieces and laugh at how important we think
of ourselves when in fact, one should be a bit more modest. Each one of us is but one unit in a population of 8 billion, how can one, even an 'artist', think of him/herself as "important". I have been selling my art succesfully for quite a while now, and I am AS grateful today to the people who buy it than I was when I sold my first painting few years back. Buy it because you like it, buy it because might be a potential investment for you,buy it for whatever reason, I will always be grateful
and keep a certain amount of modesty that I often do
NOT see in many of my collegues...

on Friday, April 22nd, boredinstockholm said

It dosn't matter that the artist just wants to paint a tree and thinks of the painting, sculpture, photo as nothing but a tree, what matters is how you see it, how you interpret it. I do believe that a lot of images contain more than what I can see and more than what the artist thinks he/she created. I'm tired of listening to artists complaining, haven't they understood that it is not only up to them to decide? When they put a piece out in the open, they should be prepared for different opinions about their art, including critic's opinions.

on Wednesday, April 20th, gabe langholtz said

Good point! Perhaps an extension on this idea may be that the main difference between these critics and the artists is the only one that has any real value - the artist unlike the critic created the work. Personally, I don't think about the art I'm creating, I let it become what it eventually will be. Critics can't understand this. It's not fathomable that one can paint something as simple as a building with no intention of painting a building at all. It's an eye opening concept, and not one to be squinted upon. Thanks Mike!

on Wednesday, April 20th, Vic Rolfe aka "smb" said

I really like the responses of jennifer and A.Y. Ohashi. Especially coming from artists!!!

Looking back on a topic that I posted some time ago at artfreaks.com forums (under The arts / Art in general,) I see that my subject heading was somewhat askew... Instead of reading "Why are some (most?) artists ma-arte?" - it should have read "Why are some members of the arts community ma-arte?"

on Tuesday, April 19th, david said

i agree that one needn't understand or accept all of the social and conceptual implications of a work of art to enjoy its visual presence; mark tansey and odd nerdrum illustrate that point as well as anyone. when a work of art leaves the domain of the person who created it, it assumes an identity all of its own. elitest critics will interpret art in accordance with their personal perceptions, as will the person who sweeps the gallery floor. the fact that a work of art can dialogue with people in so many ways is the only reason we aim to exhibit art in the first place.
whether a work of art is 'shallow' or 'deep' has everything to do with rhetoric employed by the artist, critics- and nothing to do with the perception of the viewer. an image is just an image until someone appropriates meaning.

on Tuesday, April 19th, Lowana Shanell Dumas said

The reason meaning is prepositioned upon something that actually had none, like your tree, is typically for one of two reasons (1) the societal insistence of conformity; and (2) the desire to be substantial to one's self. The latter is simply a person imposing their thoughts upon a non-participant to gain a perceived status not from another, but rather seeking it from themselves. You know, the person who likes to hear themselves speak more than they like to make sense! And the former is merely a person who declares the meaning and presumes all will follow behind them. The sad part is how many line up to do just that! Remember, the elite lead the majority, but it is the majority who elects the elite. If everyone sees the purple elephant and you see that it's gray, you are the one who is wrong. The desire to be accepted forms the line of conformity, and although art is generally non-conformist....it's really all conformist. Nothing is honestly original and nothing is honestly independent. Art, as all other things, is co-dependent for it's existence. Everyone has subjected themselves at one time or another to what another would think (part of #1), and even if only subconsciously, everyone has a difficult time not doing so.

Had I had $8,000, I would now have a 3-foot wide oil painting of five cows with silos in the background on my wall, because I like cows and these ones looked so god-danged real!

The best thing art can do, in my opinion, is allow the freedom to be- like the cows, like the tree- just to be, without any cause at all.

on Tuesday, April 19th, jennifer said

countless times the first reaction people have to finding out i am an artist is, "oh, i don't know anything about art". that doesn't matter!! if you know what you like, then you know enough about art to appreciate it. beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. i have a degree in art, but i do NOT like picasso's work---is my BFA revoked now? yeah, artist's don't neccessarily want to hear you're buying their piece because it matches your couch, but they sure as hell want you to buy their piece--so, who cares why?

on Monday, April 18th, Solar said

Get a life!

on Monday, April 18th, jose said

Once again Michael, i take my hat off to you!

on Monday, April 18th, A.Y. Ohashi said

I'm not sure "art snobs" know anything about art. Yes, sometimes a painting of a tree is just that. I once read that Georgia O'Keeffe never understood why her flower series was interpreted as sexual. She said they were just painting of flowers. She painted them larger than life so people could really look at them.

Paintings, sculpture, photography should evoke a feeling, personal at that. So much of what we consider great art, has little to do with what the artist wanted to convery, assuming the artist wanted to convey anything. What do you think Vermeer was trying to convey in Girl with the Pearl earring? Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? Dontello's David.

As an artist, I will tell you, sometimes a tree is just a tree. Sometimes the picture tells the story that you think it should tell. It doesn't matter if Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is really his self portrait, or a portrait of a wealthy merchants daughter.