|
I know what I suggested is a common complaint, seen as an uncultured take by the art world; I just disagree with the art world. I don't think context should be important for art. I think art should stand entirely on its own merits without explanation. No placard with a description. No article explaining how it represents a feud with his boyfriend. Just the artwork itself. Of course, it's impossible to entirely decontextualize an artwork, because every viewer will bring their own backstory and interpretation... But the art should be able to appeal to viewers despite the context. Maybe that's the point: Art which is universally appealing to all humans, despite their backgrounds, would be the most magical type. I once read a book which discussed how humans are universally attracted to landscapes which would be good for human habitation: Trees, a river, a temperate climate, hills and mountains to shelter in, flora and fauna... The average human from any time, any place, any religion, any language will appreciate such a painting. The same applies to nudes, still life of flowers and fruit, and other universally-understood and appealing (but kitsch) subjects. The same could not be said about the grey flag in this article. And, of course, no artwork will completely meet that universal Platonic ideal, but the attempt to meet it is what creates the intrinsic beauty which modern art abhors. I left the art world and went into STEM because of my opinions :) |
When I go to a modern art museum, I consider it a success if 90% of what I see is forgettable and 10% of it, or even 2%, is really powerful/sticks with me somehow. I’d much prefer this to 100% bland pictures of flowers and trees of which 0% will be memorable.