Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Vandalism and Local Art

A couple days ago, I guess, some protestors entered the National Gallery (the British one, not the American one) and had a go at a painting, because that's a thing we're doing now. To be clear, I don't think people ought to do this in general, and I don't think these protests make any sense. It's clearly just a "bit" the kids have settled on.

That said, it raises in my mind the question of who actually cares? There's been an outcry, of course, about our cultural heritage and so on. These valuable artifacts must be preserved, and their destruction is a crime against humanity! I've seen calls for much more vigorous security arrangements, which seems like a terrible idea to me. I don't really want angry, tense, guards on a hair trigger.

What, exactly, is the value that any of these paintings is bringing? I'll accept extremely abstract answers! I'm not here to reduce culture to dollars or to British pounds. Did the Rokeby Venus enlarge anyone's life? Does a Monet? I am, for reference, extremely pleased that these things existed! I am pleased that they exist, and I don't think people should destroy them! At the same time, I am not entirely sure why we should mourn their loss. There is no "mysterious air" here, it's just a picture.

If the painting had been, instead of vandalized, suddenly revealed to be a modern forgery, well, what then? The painting would quietly vanish from the walls, and the consensus would surely be that Culture writ large has been Improved rather than Impoverished. And yet, it would be the same painting. The fact that we believe it to be authentic seems to be an essential feature of whatever actual value it's bringing to us. Berger covers all this in "Ways of Seeing" of course, with his marvelous takedown of da Vinci's "The Virgin of the Rocks," it's not new with me.

Functionally, the Rokeby Venus has been the subject of a few million glazed-over glances, a few hundred art student sketches, and a very small handful of the weeping fans. What its current existence does for Culture is pretty vague.

Also, the mirror looks like a fucking head in a box, not a mirror. Dude, wtf were you thinking?

The history of the thing is pretty interesting! It occupies a notable position in art history! Something something nudes Spanish Inquisition, you can read all about it on wikipedia. The physical artifact on the wall doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to that, though, except as a sort of moral anchor to the story, a reification of the story. It performs the role of a photo illustrating a news item.

Let us compare, though, with an annual event here in Bellingham, the 6x6 show hosted by our local art store.

This is an open show. You can pick up a 6 inch by 6 inch square of one of several materials, for free, from the art store. Cover it with art. Anything. Paint it, carve it, attach sculpture to it, sew it. Return it to the shop, they'll give you a coupon for future purposes as a reward, and they'll hang your work. Zero curation, everything goes up. They have a show for about a month with a grid of 100s of 6x6 artworks on the wall of their gallery. You can buy any piece for $25. Proceeds to a local art non-profit.

The work is everything from 5 year old kids scribbling with crayons to professional working artists painting small landscapes. One piece was made by the artist's pet snails crawling around with pigment.

It is, easily, my favorite Art Thing in the world.

I'm now going to stealthily replace the Rokeby Venus with Monet, because the position of Monet in our culture while similar is more immediately salient. You won't have to think as much.

I put things in the 6x6 show, and so do my kids. I am, this year, the only photographer (I think) in something like 470 pieces. Which is wild! My kids draw/paint stuff. Usually, nobody buys anything we put in, about which more anon.

But what about this small, often poorly made, extremely local, art? It hits quite differently from a Monet. I could write at length about why a Monet is "better" but at the same time some child's crude drawing of a frog has its own intense value. At the bottom, the Monet and the Frog are the same: a piece of decor, with the potential to move us emotionally, to enlarge us as humans. They are the same in that both Claude and the child, let's call her Susie, essentially wanted to show us what something looked like: A Garden, A Frog.

There are endless details of scale, of technique, of scope of imagination, and so on that could be brought to bear to show how the two paintings are different, and one much superior. Mostly, though, the Monet painting is superior because the people we pay to tell us what's superior have said that it is superior.

Looking at a Monet can hit pretty hard! The effect is real! I love Monet, and have travelled to see Monet paintings! At the same time, though, a part of what I experience is the cultural baggage, the stamp of approval from the curatorial staff of various museums, the stamp of approval from critics and historians. The Frog hits differently, it has no baggage.

Nevertheless, it manifests with awful clarity the sincerity of the artist. The Monet and The Frog both reveal the will, shared by Susie and Claude, to show us what something looks like. Looking at Monet, the cloud of cultural baggage tends to obscure this will; looking at Susie's Frog nothing is obscured. There is a reason theorists and critics are obsessed with the ways children draw. There is an authenticity, a clarity of purpose, a purity of method (as it were) that a more thoroughly educated artist, or even art appreciator, loses.

Monet is in a sense sealed in amber and elevated to a pedestal. We cannot but react to the paintings, because we're told to do so. Monet is distant. You literally have to take a trip to see a Monet. For $25 I can have Susie's Frog in my home, over my desk, and look at it every day by raising my chin slightly. Susie's Frog was made here, in my town, by a child who probably lives no more than 2 miles away from me. There is an immediacy here, a nearness. Susie's Frog is a radically different cultural artifact than is a Monet painting, and in many ways it's much more salient.

Looking at a Monet can be a powerful experience, but in the end I leave the gallery and return to my life much as I was before. This kind of High Culture, as defined and managed by the priesthood, feels like a separate track, a kind of entertainment I can step into when I want to, but which doesn't live and breathe with me, with us. It has nothing to do with my daily life, with the daily clockwork of my little town.

Something is lost when an artist matures. The childish authenticity fades as the artist works to become more technically proficient, to make something look real; or perhaps the artist is trying to imbue their work with some sort of abstract meaning. Passing "beyond" the desire to show you what a frog looks like, the mature artist tries to make the frog look "real" or tries to make the frog stand in for something else.

This is, of course, the business of High Art, but damn is it hard. Many, perhaps most, artists spend a long time in the doldrums between childish directness and the actual ability to make the frog mean something. They're not painting a frog, they're painting a painting of a frog but no more than that.

Interestingly, the pieces that sell quickly at the 6x6 show are exactly these pictures. The realistic but ultimately kind of empty paintings of bicycles or boats, the well-made pictures with silly jokes, and so on. I like these things too, but I don't much want to own one. As well, there are certainly a few artists in play who are genuinely injecting meaning and depth into their well made pictures, and those sometimes sell as well. The childish frogs don't really sell, which is in a way a pity. I dare say people want to have something that's obviously well made, rather than something clumsy. Perhaps they're not very interested in the art children make; their loss.

In the end, I love 6x6 more than anything else Arty, because it hits inside my world, rather than outside it. It's Art that lands inside my life, my existence, not outside it in some temple to culture, not on a track that is parallel to my life, but actually on the rails my life runs on.

11 comments:

  1. The value of art and culture is that they are a step above basic necessities for survival. The point is that they don't contribute anything groundbreaking, they are just "nice".

    Protestors attacking art frames a d glss do so to demonstrate this arbitrary value. People are more upset about smashed glass and frames and tomatoes than they are about rainforests, actual life being eradicated. A forest is as much art as a painting. But the outrage is only there for the painting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does this account for the level of upset following the felling of the sycomore gap tree, or the HS2 ancient trees felling?

      Delete
    2. People get crazy about trees for some reason and I have no explanation. I mean, I like trees too! Trees are important! But they seem to lose their shit about specific trees, usually quite old ones.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but you could make that same kind of tenuous connection for virtually any act you could name. One of the attractive things here, surely, is that you're likely to be punished surprisingly lightly for this sort of thing rather than for, say, blowing up a gas station or something, even if the gas station is actually worth less than the painting.

      These particular protests are very easy to execute, guaranteed to get press, result in probably light punishment, and all your friends are doing them!

      The paintings, to be fair, invariably survive. Paintings are surprisingly restorable, and the protestors don't seem to be particularly serious about attacking the canvases anyway.

      Delete
  2. The protests have nothing to do with art, they are about attention-seeking. They do not call attention to the 'value' of the art, though it must be very valuable to achieve the desired effect (ditto commentary on same). This is a soft target. One may ask how individuals packing glass-breaking hammers obtained entrance to the museum. Whatever, clearly it's not working. More oil extraction projects are being hatched every day. Several billion tons of fresh, ordinance-based carbon is being spewed. The protesters got themselves a headline, and several years of free room and board. The chattering classes got a new chew toy (viz. ^^^). We are rapidly running out of road. Also, why couldn't they attack a Jeff Koons fabrication? That's a protest I could get behind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You might have answered your question with the snippet "Culture writ large has been Improved rather than Impoverished. ". That's it, basically, I believe. If this object disappears, will the world be a tiny bit better, or a tiny bit worse? As you rightly say, even basic expressions of creativity tend to improve things, not only the anointed stuff.
    Now I can't fight the urge to revisit Robert Adams' 'Gone' book. It's about exactly that, things we took for granted, stopped paying real attention to, and then suddenly they are no more. Photographed in Adams' elegant and straight way, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I think that is rather my point?!

      If the painting goes into the bin because it was slashed to bits by vandals, it allegedly impoverishes our culture.

      If the exact same painting goes into the exact same bin because it was deemed a forgery, it allegedly improves our culture.

      But it's the same painting! The same bin!

      The curious fact that a painting, once sublime, becomes in an instant banal when the author's name changes has a *great* *deal* to say about how our High Culture is made.

      Delete
  4. Almost anyone can identify who the first Avenger was, but very few know of the painting "Archbishop Filippo Archinto, 1558" by Titian. Does that make Captain Steve Rogers(first Avenger) more...relevant now?

    Yeah, really good adult art is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes?

      You can say ".. is necessary" all you like but if you can't connect the dots you haven't actually made an argument.

      Delete
    2. I think you'll find almost all ideas about culture (dots if you prefer) are connected *tenuously* by some form of social agreement, some encompassing many people, some few. Art ain't rocket science, eh?

      Delete
  5. Does all this apply to NFTs too?

    ReplyDelete