What I think of the "Art Scene"

(I wrote this when I was 16 I think...forgive sweeping generalizations)


Like many, I think the culture surrounding modern art is horribly 
ridiculous and hokey. Many people have shifted the focus of their art from 
beauty and poignancy to "expressing your deep dark self," or being 
"experimental." The result is far too often totally pretentious, or just 
really, really bad.

Though the modern art culture may not be focused on what I consider art, I 
do not think all modern art is trash. Maybe it's just that most is made by 
students--people who know nothing of design or colors, but call themselves 
fine artists and sit in a studio all day, painting to escape their 
problems. Maybe they are artists, but the process of therapy, or whatever 
weird illusionary accomplishments they make, are not inherently artistic 
or good. Anymore, the art culture seems like this: pay 100,000 dollars in 
art school and hang out in coffeehouse, having shallow conversations using 
big words about topics that do not really affect you...similar to your 
assignment back in the dorm depicting a helpless girl locked in a cage; it 
is badly painted, and you talk about how it is so symbolic of your inner 
self. That is not my philosophy of art--or even a worthwhile way to spend 
time and money.

I am not convinced that any given radical modern art group is inherently 
art-based. Are they not rebelling against old standards? Perhaps they are 
un-art, hyper-art, or sur-art. It seems to me, even the masters--at least, 
who common authorities consider so: Michelangelo, Picasso, Pollock, 
etc.--knew that they were creating images powerful enough to be 
self-sustained without some political message or emotion as the driving 
force behind the images. Art and intellectualism really are not the same 
thing. Even in the Renaissance the two were disconnected and recognized as 
such--celebrated within the same circles, but disconnected nonetheless. 
There were mathematicians, and then there were separate sculptors, and 
then there were philosophers. These areas sometimes merged into a single 
professional life, like Da Vinci's, and certainly advanced together, but 
were never muddled.

I don't imagine Michelangelo painted pictures which his tortured soul 
presented him, and even Picasso did not deem his emotional/political work, 
such as "Guernica," on-target regarding his Cubist philosophies; the 
baggage he called distracting. Another typical complaint is here raised: 
artists "selling out," an example being Picasso's commissioned painting. 
It is good to note almost all Renaissance masterpieces were created on 
commission. "Sold out" or not, a good artist can still create genuine and 
good art when the inspiration comes from someplace other than the 
'innermost depths of his soul.'

Most political art, such as much of the feminist art movement, makes for 
bad art. It makes good propaganda and conversation-piece work, but perhaps 
not fine art. Every stylistic aspect of feminist art is so revolutionary, 
maybe it should just be classified as anti-art. I believe much of this 
design-oriented and communication-oriented movement will blow over and be 
classified as something other than fine art in the history books.

People define art many different ways.  For the purposes of this document 
I'll define it like so:  Art should be the creation of images powerful 
enough to be self-sustained, justified, and stirring without intellectual, 
political, or emotional baggage. This baggage sometimes is incorporated as 
a valuable element to art, without being little more than a weak 
justification for the artistic process. Look at Kathe Kollwitz. Though 
emotional, there are other reasons why her work is "good."  Her work is a 
good example of propaghanda coexisting with good art, but not overtaking 
it.

I suppose one must be an artist before one can try to be a political 
artist. Merely having something to say should not earn people Masters of 
Fine Arts degrees.  I consider art schools with a grain of salt for this 
reason:  I suspect the modern art trend inhibits many art schools from 
actually teaching art.

.