On the recommendation from Forrest, Golden and I visited the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art on Saturday. We both actually enjoyed it. It is rather small, as we took our time and we were still through in just under an hour. I did make two observations while I was there, though.
When I am looking at contemporary art I am never completely sure what is and isn't art. There were a bunch of toys in the middle of one room. Was that an art piece or was it to keep kids occupied while the adults look at the pieces? When I was at the The Art Institute of Chicago Museum a couple of years ago I almost stepped on some art in the middle of a display room because it looked like a mat. At one art display once (I don't remember where) I almost sat down on some art because it was made to look like a seat. It may not have been art after all, but who can tell?
Dave Barry once pointed out that while he did not disagree with displaying art, he did believe that it should be obviously marked as art so that the 98% of the population who cannot recognize non-conventional modern art when they see it will not sit on it. I agree with this sentiment.
The second observation I made was that if a body is displayed in art, the odds are very good that it is not a traditionally attractive body. However, if sexuality is alluded to within the art that does not depict a human body it is typically (in my limited experience) either portrayed as beautiful or aggressive.
Case in point, there were several statues of humans in the museum and not one of them would really typically be considered attractive. There were a couple of Georgia O'Keeffe paintings at the museum as well that were accompanied by a plaque that stated that many believe her paintings represent feminine sexuality. This was denied by O'Keeffe, but the fact that paintings of flowers are thought to be sexual simply due to their beauty is telling.
Then again, what do I know. I'm a literalist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If you really want to be confused, I should take you down to the crossroads district for a "First Friday Gallery Exhibit." It is our hot little art distict in KC.
I think the toys you experienced was an installation art piece. From my experience in art school and what I know of the mindset of modern art, a lot of artist grew up with the notion that you can only look at art and not touch - like working on the sabbath. They are trying to challenge that mindset the brings the viewer to interact with the piece thus creating a process and then the process is what is displayed as art. But the challenge is that too many of the viewers still feel that they shouldn't touch the "art."
I hope that make sense, cuz I've got more and I didn't even cover the body.
I would think that
~ If art is made to look like a matt, then it should be steppen on while pausing on a journey the artist has in mind.
~ Bench art should be sat on - while looking at what the artist wants you to see.
~ An installation piece made up of toys should be played with. And if there wern't any of those velvet ropes surrounding it, playing should be expected.
Dust, you and Forrest should have had your discussion on your blog to increase your comment count! : )
Maybe we should have played with the toys! And maybe we should create some art of our own.
I think Dust's artistic abilities are in writing.
I think his artistic abilities are in his prancing. He would have made a great ballerina.
Have you notice the commenting has dropped drastically ever sense Dash had his comment count tallies and related that to most worthwhile content.
I am giving away my comments freely. You are all worthwhile in my eyes.
Post a Comment