Contemporary Art- a load of bollix?

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Even bad art is relevant.

If a large majority of the leading edge art is "bad" in the eyes of the viewing public then it's only relevance is to point out how irrelevant it has become at that point. IMHO we're not too far away from that in some circles.

The oft heard responses to critique of contemporary art tend to run along the same old lines. One could argue they're excuses wrapped up in pretension and defensiveness for an ever decreasing circle jerk. "Oh they thought Van Gogh was crap when he was alive" is a common one. Poor old Vinnie has a lot to answer for. Above and beyond his stunning talent, his "tortured artist starving in a garret undiscovered" spiel has become a meme in the general publics mind and an excuse for lacklustre and unoriginal witterings from self proclaimed "artists". Well it makes a great story. One that every (usually self inflicted) tortured soul can glean some hope that they too are an "artist" and bullshít enough of the art establishment if they're very lucky. As has the notion that we better look at everything cos we might miss another Vinnie and the fear that if we call utter bollocks on something we're the same as all those poor fools who missed him.

And it is largely bollocks. 1) Vinnie had immense skill as well as raw talent. Skill bought with years and years of hard slog perfecting his trade(his early attempts are remarkably crap. In that people should take the lesson to keep working and working and growing). Without that slog he would have just been another depressive with an eye for colour. To break the rules it helps to know the rules in the first place.

2)Talent is not enough. Never has been, though the post modernists would have you believe it is. As if the (usually unoriginal) thought followed by lazy unschooled and unworked for execution is enough. Nope. The practiced artisan is almost directly excluded by the contemporary art world. Oh if it shows skill in execution its not "real" art you know. Arse. That notion has some merit when folks like the Dadaists were current, but afterwards all that notion has fostered has been to follow that single course to the exclusion of others.

3) Towering talents like him going undiscovered are very rare in art history and people also forget that not that long after his death he was spotted by people in the know and the world at large. His talented contemporaries after an initial WTF? from the art establishment were also spotted by people in the know and the general public. Monet died a very wealthy man on the back of his once odd art and the general public drove a lot of that. The same general public that can be seen as unthinking simps by the black turtle neck brigade today. Ditto for Manet, Pissarro and Cezanne did alright too. Gauguin a chap who like Vinnie seemed willfully against well everything including the art world and dealers, nevertheless was supported towards the end of his life by his dealer and very soon after he pegged it a world away from the French art world his paintings were flying off the shelves. Basically if they lived long enough their output was valued. Ditto for the guys who followed who went even more out there. Picasso after a short enough time was spotted for the genius he was and again not just by the art establishment. The best of that gang made fortunes in their lifetime and ordinary men and women were hanging reproductions in their living rooms around the world.

Oh and as for Vermeer referenced by MistyCheese? I dunno what art history books MistyCheese is reading but Vermeer had a nice enough little career going thank you very much. Oh he wasn't in the top tier of the time but his paintings sold. His financial woes were more to do with a very severe recession that hit the low countries(and a very low level of output on his part). All aspects of the art world collapsed. He wasn't the only artist, writer etc in the hunt for a few quid at the time. Yes after his death his value was lost for a time but he was recognised and sold while he was alive.

Now some have mentioned that some of these contemporary people can draw so why are they constructing over elaborate explanations for bollocks surrounded by a gallery? Well how well can they draw? Most folks out there can't draw themselves, think it a black art driven by raw talent so look at something that looks vaguely well executed and naturally figure "jayzuz I can't do that so it must be good drawing". Not so. A lot of those people could with practice and application and two good eyes, hell one would do, do similar if not better. Like if you were at a party and some bloke or blokess started up a tune on a guitar. Many onlookers will think god they're good and they could just be mashing a three chord trick. It doesn't make them a Hendrix, or a McCartney or even a basic musician. In the contemporary art world too many are those three chord tricksters masquerading as musicians. Though the same people looking on if they think about it know this deep down. When faced with a sketch by Rembrandt or Leonardo or Picasso or a 40,000 year old cave painting they feel it. They know it's good. No explanation required. And no it's eff all to do with accepted ideas of beauty either. Another defence of the contemporary high art world.

So what is art today? Pretty much what is agreed to be Art, by an ever decreasing circle jerk of artists, dealers and galleries. Much less so about agreement from the rest of the world even those patrons who actually buy said art on the advice of said dealers and galleries(usually as an investment) and yes OP that is bollocks.

Me I'd look more at the wider craft world today if you want to see and buy some actual artists and artisans making good and relevant work.