I learned two things in art school: (1) Art is not "anything", and (2) Some art is good, some art sucks, and you are allowed to hate both kinds.*
Well, I don't hate the art of the minimalist sculptor Donald Judd, but I don't really like any of it either. And I'm writing from having experienced his artwork first-hand, not simply seeing them in books. A lot of Judds, I think, are uninteresting. But I would never dare accuse them of not being art. I wouldn't even call them "bad art" -- in fact, most Judd sculptures are really good. I just don't have a place in my heart for them.
So what's my point? The point is, I came across this brilliant and audacious quiz called Donald Judd, or Cheap Furniture? (via The Morning News), which illustrates how difficult it can be to distinguish between priceless works of art and everyday objects. Art may not be "anything" but it can certainly look like any thing. Can you tell the difference? Take the quiz here and see if you can best my score of 83% (I'd never seen any of the Judd artworks in the quiz until I took it).
*To be fair, I learned more than just two things in art school. For example, I learned turpentine is fairly poisonous, nude modeling pays $12.50 an hour if you have no experience, and painters are poorer, but nicer, than graphic designers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I was fooled by the bed, but otherwise I got the same score.
I'm not saying I like it, but at least by working with furniture, Judd has a context that pretty much every viewer has to react to his work from. Modern art often gets made as a reaction, in conversation with, other not so much obscure but specialized art, and that's about when people start saying it's not art and they're making stuff up.
Ah yes, the bed fooled me too. But I should have known -- that's the most impractical bed I have ever seen.
When I was in school, I once read a review of a sculpture that described it as "too useless to be anything else but art." It has become my favorite definition of art -- something crafted that is otherwise useless. After all, if it were useful, it'd be called design.
I've always liked asking people what, if they could have anything, they would want to own just to own and basically not use as originally intended. Nothing created just for looking at, more or less anything else they liked enough to sort of be art.
Which, if I liked Ikea beds enough, would end up looking like Judd's work. A bed not for sleeping. Mind you, I dunno who that person who picks that is.
That bed really was tricky. A thing that helped was that it looked like it was being displayed in a gallery, like the other Judd pieces in the quiz. Was Tracey Emin's "My Bed" art before she put it in a gallery and presented it as art? Following on from your very cool definition, Darren - did it become art the moment it became a bed not for sleeping...
In response to your first question, Michelle, I'd say it wasn't a finished art object until it was exhibited. The reason is because Tracey Emin reputedly arranged the bed and detritus to her liking in order to exhibit it -- some craft and context went into its creation. Before that, it was simply a bed and some objects in her room.
To your second question, I reply thus: my definition only applies to art objects (paintings, sculptures, etc.) and not to "conceptual" art. For example, my definition fails to contextualize some of Sol LeWitt's art. LeWitt once exhibited a printed description of a drawing, but not the drawing itself! The artwork, therefore, was the "concept" of a drawing, not the physical object of graphite lines on a framed sheet of paper.
Tracey Emin's My Bed is more a conceptual piece than an art object. Don't get me wrong: it absolutely is an aesthetically stunning object, with those artful fabric folds and deep blue carpet. I could look at it all day. But all that stuff is just "design." The real art is in the concept: a bed tells you about the owner.
Donald Judd's furniture, on the other hand, is all about the object. "How minimalist can I make this chair?"
Post a Comment