Is It Art?

Is It Art?

Or is it something slightly less noble? Cheap sensationalism, pretentious posturing or the wholesale denigration of one of the primary means of raising the human spirit?

In his introduction to "The Picture Of Dorian Gray", Oscar Wilde asserted that all Art is useless, meaning it is of no "utilitarian" value but is absolutely essential in that it expresses and gives form to otherwise nebulous and inaccessible areas of Human consciousness, revealing what cannot otherwise be communicated.  The very universality of Art, that it exists all over the World (and it's absence tends to signify calamity, repression or downright barbarism), evidences a need we as a species have to both create and perceive beautiful, mysterious but essentially "useless" objects.  Art can also afford us a glimpse of an otherwise vanished age and it's attendant vanities and social graces, revealing perhaps what changes and what remains the same.  In the field of indigenous folk craft, Art can transcend spatial, linguistic and cultural barriers, giving us an insight into the history and belief systems of other peoples and, in doing so, reveal universal truths as to what it means to be human. The sheer breadth of styles, mediums and towering imaginative and technical achievements ennoble the human race, inspire us and infuse our otherwise random lives (memorably described by Shakespeare's Macbeth as "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing") with a sense of shape, form and meaning.

Bearing all this in mind we might now consider both the purpose and effects of contemporary Art (by which I mean that which is considered "High" Art, the stuff that fills galleries,  is aggressively forwarded in Art schools, and awarded prizes, endowments and governmental grants).

The most cursory glance at the top end of contemporary Art, the dizzying heights of achievement celebrated in the Turner prize exhibition (and how that great artist must be turning in his grave) or  that commonly feted at MOMA and other such institutions indicate that, as in all other areas, the field of Art has been co- opted by a corrosive and parasitic elite, one hell- bent (quite literally) on the degradation and de- spiritualization of humanity.
Lights switching on and off, filthy unmade beds, Madonnas rendered in elephant dung, tinned excrement, crucifixes immersed in urine, and so on.

Now, maybe you can accept that this "work" is somehow "interesting" and offers us an insight into the human condition or "new ways of seeing" (a tin of crap is offering us a new way of seeing what exactly? And, assuming this is something "new" , is it worth seeing?).

If you're unfortunate enough to have been through the "Art school" process in the last 50 years you will be all too aware of how exalted this stuff is and how any criticism, especially if sourcing from a reverence for craft and beauty is strictly verboten. "Painting", a "lecturer" once informed me, was merely "drawing with a hairy stick" (confirming his ignorance of the science of oil painting  as well as noxious conceit), beauty was "chocolate box" sentimental garbage for the uninformed and, anyway, it had "all been done before", so let us boldly go forth into a world of unmade beds,  faulty light fittings and adults dressed as teddy bears. Phew! So glad we can do away with all that drawing nonsense. Can you imagine what Rembrandt, Rubens & Co might have been capable of, had they not been tied to all that tedious and unnecessary craft? For, in case you didn't notice,  pre 20th century (Modernist) Art  was "enslaved" by being somehow based upon visual experience and steeped in ignorance, being bereft of the illumination of the critic, "Critical Theory", Cultural Marxism and all those other essential insights that save us from bumbling around with paint brushes and canvases; in short, everything Art wise, worldwide Indigenous folk craft as well as "High" Art, and from the dawn of man to the early 20th century, was wrong or, at best, flawed, being based upon craft, actual visual experience, beauty, imagination and expression of the otherwise inexpressible, rather than conforming to the "theories" of an enlightened elite who, far too rarified of sensibility to dirty their hands with actual creation, completely lacked the "insider knowledge" of the very phenomena they were criticizing.

This latter point is key. Can one imagine any other field of endeavour where one can "teach" a subject one has absolutely no practical experience or ability of? A Fine Art lecturer at a class I attended explained that his lack of talent led him towards the study and teaching of Art theory (no, I'm not making this up). In truth, there is no "diversity" in contemporary Art; anything goes provided its ugly, blasphemous, scatological, pornographic, nihilistic, "intellectual" (strictly Post- Modern/Marxist, mind), transgressive and depressingly redolent of resentment and the kind of adolescent angst that was once confined to a brief "difficult age" but now acts as an aesthetic and behavioural model from cradle to grave. 

So how do they get away with this? 

Well, firstly the same small clique of dealers, gallery owners and academic/intellectuals have their counterpart in the mainstream media, all of which increases the market value of their favoured "Artists" whilst constructing an illusion of consensus; that a commonality exists between the practitioners, their celebrants and a public that continues to attend galleries and purchase Art periodicals.

 Maybe a significant number of people actually appreciate contemporary Art? 

Or maybe a significant number of people are fearful of being denounced as out of touch fuddiduddies or reactionaries. We'd all like to consider ourselves urbane, informed and sophisticated and, having being constantly and tediously reminded of how "new" Art was always initially greeted with dismay (a fallacy it itself, but I won't for now, digress further)  are reluctant to express outrage and shock, lest it be interpreted as Daily Mail-esque  conservatism.

But the cutting edge of Western Art, especially since the 20th century, has usually been radical, "right on" and left wing? 

Hmm, let's see;  Pound &  Stravinsky (Fascist sympathies), Marinetti and his futurist chums (Fascist, pro war/Italian imperialism), Schoenberg and Elliot (religious & political conservatism) whilst the USSR and China was churning out clunky "Socialist Realism" paintings and ballets about tractor factories.

But surely this state of affairs wouldn't exist if people weren't visiting galleries such as Tate Modern, (the director of which, Nicholas Serota, asserted that the literally attendant success of his gallery was proof that the masses "got" contemporary Art)? 

Or that people liked to go somewhere on a day out? Like the London Eye or Madam Tussauds, Tate Modern is perhaps one in a series of outing options available, albeit with the added conceit of a "cultured" experience, one that, appealingly, makes little or no demands on one's attention; compared to say, reading James Joyce or listening to "Modernist" music (from even well over a century ago), one can gawp at all the freak show exhibits without extending too much effort, thinking about one's dinner or whatever one pleases. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "mindless" mental- grazing gazing, by the way, only I would suggests that Mother Nature offers a far finer field of contemplation, free from both expense and pretence.

Ok, but what if we can't compete with, say, the achievements of the Old Masters? 

Well, don't compete! Be inspired! Everyone starts somewhere (consider how children naturally progress from scrawled crayon daubs to more "sophisticated" drawing). Effort expended is admirable, charming and uplifting, and one should proceed without fear of judgement. Art is not about competing, superceding, "being the best" or any other market- driven nonsense. It is, amongst other things, about celebrating the wealth, mystery and beauty of the visual world, giving form to one's feelings and the sheer simple joy of creating something that previously didn't exist.  I'd say utilize the Old Masters as a model if required, taking pleasure both in their stellar achievements and your own progress (which will come if you give it time).

Yes, but we are where we are. You can't suggest that we disregard the path that Art has pursued for the last century? 

But what if that path is the wrong one? If one embarked on a trip to the Great Wall Of China and found oneself confronted by the Wailing Wall in Palestine, at what point would one check the satnav, refer to the map and accept that one may have veered slightly off course?  This is, as well, assuming that "Art" is some monolithic entity rather than the result of the disparate endeavours of different people, working independently, often without knowledge or concern for what is going on Art wise elsewhere.

This sounds suspiciously like the sour grapes of the impoverished Artist...

Perhaps it is, but what do you suggest? That we allow those who can't to dominate the conversation, continue to silently accept the mendacity, corruption and chutzpah of talentless poseurs and sociopaths, and passively watch civilization and the human spirit to be defiled and corroded?
The fact is that this effects us all, as we are all subject to, and informed by, the culture that surrounds us, and this malaise is symptomatic of a widescreen, holistic assault upon human consciousness.

Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder and we, as a species are blessed with a rich and diverse abundance of Art, culture and creativity, one that invites us to contemplate the vast canopy of human expression without regional, racial, temporal or spatial boundaries. This legacy, gifted to us, is now in danger of being squandered and destroyed, like the histories of so many vanquished and forgotten civilizations. It is a duty and privilege to protect it, and to act upon the conviction and  the courage to call a can of shit what it is; nothing more than a can of shit.