Black and White and Light and Shade
It is tempting to say that public reaction to contemporary art is improving, but perhaps nothing has changed except the newspaper articles that tell us this are no longer selling papers. Press coverage seems to have settled down in recent times, but we still get too many pictures of artists looking self-satisfied at the controversy they cause.
But most people never come into contact with modern art except as something that occasionally appears, unloved, in the high street and is immediately set upon by the local newspaper:
"We went out into the street and asked an 86 year old plumber what he thought of it. 'It's a load of rubbish!' he said, which is why we are asking the council to tear it down and burn it."
A weird situation often occurs here...you have a bunch of people desperate for the council to remove one small piece of art in a high street absolutely wrecked by ugly and excessive shop frontage, signage and badly-planned contemporary architecture. But these last few things are not easy targets; there's no instant plug-in "common-sense" argument to spit sneeringly from the lips based on a thousand tabloid articles.
The reason many people have views on contemporary art in the first place is a strange result of circular logic. A newspaper places each member of the public in a target market and identifies them as someone who hates modern art. So they place stories telling them how bad modern art is...hey presto, those members of the public read about it and start hating modern art. Hmm. I fear that the percentage of people with an opinion of the contents of Tate Modern who have actually been to this free admission museum is lower than a snake's belly.
We should, of course, not blame the media. Another easy target. There is certainly a great deal of bad art out there and much of it hides behind the breaking of taboos. The maxim that art should make you feel something is a good one, but when that feeling is always engineered to be a vague sense of shock, we are right to become weary over time. People's reactions to this art is based on their exposure to it, and if they have only ever been exposed to the stuff that is supposed to shock, that sense of ennui is understandable.
The public reaction is based on modern art being a single entity to celebrate or despise, as if it were some kind of blood-soaked, sex-obsessed celebrity wallowing in the spolight and swearing its head off. This becomes even clearer when you realise how people's arguments are frequently based on their feelings toward the artist, rather than the artwork. It is easier to comprehend this way, and ignores a bigger debate as to what makes good art over bad art, rather than the usual "Modern Art is Crap...yes or no?" Perhaps this year's winning Turner Prize entry, along with a great deal of positive coverage, will help us overcome this hurdle.
But most people never come into contact with modern art except as something that occasionally appears, unloved, in the high street and is immediately set upon by the local newspaper:
"We went out into the street and asked an 86 year old plumber what he thought of it. 'It's a load of rubbish!' he said, which is why we are asking the council to tear it down and burn it."
A weird situation often occurs here...you have a bunch of people desperate for the council to remove one small piece of art in a high street absolutely wrecked by ugly and excessive shop frontage, signage and badly-planned contemporary architecture. But these last few things are not easy targets; there's no instant plug-in "common-sense" argument to spit sneeringly from the lips based on a thousand tabloid articles.
The reason many people have views on contemporary art in the first place is a strange result of circular logic. A newspaper places each member of the public in a target market and identifies them as someone who hates modern art. So they place stories telling them how bad modern art is...hey presto, those members of the public read about it and start hating modern art. Hmm. I fear that the percentage of people with an opinion of the contents of Tate Modern who have actually been to this free admission museum is lower than a snake's belly.
We should, of course, not blame the media. Another easy target. There is certainly a great deal of bad art out there and much of it hides behind the breaking of taboos. The maxim that art should make you feel something is a good one, but when that feeling is always engineered to be a vague sense of shock, we are right to become weary over time. People's reactions to this art is based on their exposure to it, and if they have only ever been exposed to the stuff that is supposed to shock, that sense of ennui is understandable.
The public reaction is based on modern art being a single entity to celebrate or despise, as if it were some kind of blood-soaked, sex-obsessed celebrity wallowing in the spolight and swearing its head off. This becomes even clearer when you realise how people's arguments are frequently based on their feelings toward the artist, rather than the artwork. It is easier to comprehend this way, and ignores a bigger debate as to what makes good art over bad art, rather than the usual "Modern Art is Crap...yes or no?" Perhaps this year's winning Turner Prize entry, along with a great deal of positive coverage, will help us overcome this hurdle.
posted by Jamie at 2:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home