TV Trays and Thrift Store Frames

What is the state of Contemporary Art?

Since we have talked all semester about the impact and influence the internet has had on art today, I simply googled that phrase. The third hit that comes up is a link to a Washington Post review by WP critic Blake Gopnik. He is decidedly unhappy with what he saw in three massive European shows.

The first pieces I will talk about are quite different, McCracken on the right and Davila on the left. Gopnik has this to say: Noting the juxtaposition betweem McCracken's work and Davila's, Post critic Blake Gopnik writes, Documenta "curators are equally committed, apparently, to a bevy of extra-sloppy, ugly-is-beautiful, sex-themed allegories."

I think this is a good start in showing where contemporary is today, and what critics are saying about it. Essentially, they are as lost as the up-and-coming artists are. I still stand by my opinion that when it comes to Post Modernism, anything goes. I don't think an artists has any limits - subject matter, material, installation, performance, electronic media - it is ALL SYSTEMS GO!!! If there are any artists today who feel constricted, then they are simply confused by their alternatives. It is because they have no boundaries that they are lost. They are still thinking like college students. They need an assignment with parameters. They are coming out of college and are just standing there with the deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes going, "Okay, now what do I do?"

I was very happy with the class that I am writing this blog for - the teacher was particularly enthusiastic about Art History from 1960, and also clearly loved to instigate conflict. Her favorite comment: "Fascinating!" I am old enough that I still think of Spock when I hear that word used singularly, but she is far younger than me, so I am pretty sure she does not have the same connection to that word as I do. (A plastic Spock, just for you Rachel!)

Aside from that, we were always encourage to spew about our likes and dislikes - every time we came to class. It was the mediocre work that was the worst - she needed to show us stuff that either elicited an "I love it!" or an "I hate it!" Anything in the middle was boring. If it did not bring out strong emotions from us, she didn't spend any time on it. She went out of her way to find artists and works that were strong emotionally. Isn't that what art is all about - stirring you to emotions? Don't you always remember all of the really awesome art you have seen? But don't you also always remember the really awful stuff? I think they both are burned equally into my brain cells.

The Davila piece shown above reminds of our assignment of appropriated art. One of our class members bought a framed piece of (expletive) from a thrift store, and painted some additional things on top of it. Perfect for the assignment. I have done this exact things in the past with my young boys - bought framed pieces at the thrift store, primed them over, and given them their own "masterpiece" substrates to work on. I have also taken the same approach a few times in art therapy projects.This was a little intimidating at first for my boys, but the senior citizens who worked on this for art therapy loved it. They all had an inner DaVinci going on and were thrilled that it was already framed and ready to go.

I think my boys were more interested in painting out some TV trays and covering them with their new designs. They knew they were going to be a surface to eat on, and we finished them with several coats of clear polycrylic to help protect them. They also use them for play - marbles work great because there is a lip on the edge to keep things from rolling off, army guys work great - small enough to make a whole battlefield, and just writing and drawing. They are so proud of these, and I love the fact that we made art they could use and appreciate every day. The framed paintings we appropriated from the thrift store? Those never got hung. They were never that excited about the finished product. Were they intimidated by the thought that a framed piece of art was not within their abilities? Maybe. They mostly just weren't sure what to paint. The TV trays? No hesitation. They both jumped right in. The only difference I can clearly see is the big frame - it must have been a little too much for them.

The Davila piece looks like an appropriated framed piece. Maybe it was another of the artist's pieces that did not sell, so he added a bunch to it. Maybe it was his practice palette - I've seen some really beautiful palettes that end up being hung for art. Accidental art. That is contemporary.

Then you look at McCracken's minimalist piece from the late 80's and say, "Yeah, that is still relevant today. That is still contemporary art". To me, it clearly took more time and effort than Davila's, but that is not singularly what makes it contemporary art.

After trying so hard this entire semester to define art, to declare if art is alive or dead, to identify art when I see it, and finally to ask what the state of contemporary art is today - I am still not sure I have any definitive answers. I am not sure anyone in our class does, including the intelligent, knowledgeable, and passionate instructor (you can call me a suck-up, but those adjectives are sincere).

What I have learned is this: I am sincere and passionate about the art I create. I am filled with emotion that I am trying to express when I work on the pieces I work on. It is important to me to instill a reaction in the people that view my art. Last of all, I deeply hope that I am creating a memorable image for people to carry for the rest of their lives. I want them to remember my work in ten or twenty or fifty years and say, "Yeah, I remember that. It was kind of cool and it made me think."