Originally I wanted to review last night’s class on Glasgow Boy artist James Nairn, who left Scotland and moved to New Zealand for his health. His relocation shook up the artistic tradition of an entire country, leading to the development of the Pumpkin Cottage style of Impressionism in NZ. But before I can get to Nairn, I want to recap a debate that jumped up right at the start of last night’s lecture when we were discussing a Niki de Saint Phalle exhib at MoMA’s PS1.
Knokke. c. 1973. Painted polyester. Photo: Katrin
Baumann. © 2021 Niki Charitable Art Foundation
Every once in a while during lectures the question “why the heck is that art?!?” comes up, and it always leads to rousing discussions on both the pro and con sides as to why contemporary art is art. Interestingly enough, the question never arises when we’re looking at Caravaggio or Hopper or Monet, but more when we’re looking at and discussing artists like Ian Cheng, Mark Rothko or, as was the case last night, Niki de Saint Phalle.
Now, keep on mind, MoMA PS1 is meant to showcase exhibits that are , in the museum’s own words: “today’s most experimental,
thought-provoking art.” So, if we are going to look for serene visions of water lilies, we must look elsewhere ( same museum, different location…)
But this begs the question, are these works solely meant to shock patrons and take viewers out of their collective contented stupor or are they actually statements of artists’ self-expression, meant to communicate a deeper meaning to the world at large? If so, does all art created out of a burning desire for an individual to express themselves in a profound way, while valid on its own as a purpose, deserve to be publicly viewed, bought & sold, collected, and even heralded?
Or is art merely about creation and then consumption as a commodity? Has it lost its purpose as a transportive device for the viewer while only serving its creator, or does new art answer only to the art market’s prima causa of supply and demand, buy and sell, all the while meant to increase in value? This seems to be the case when we talk about NFTs, or Non Fungible Tokens, but that’s a whole other discussion for an entirely different day.
Last night’s argument, a detour to the lecture on the work of Scottish artist James Nairn, Glasgow Boy and Pumpkin Cottage instigator, was interesting for several reasons, one of which was its irony.
Keep in mind that the work of Nairn, like the Impressionists (of whatever national origin- Italian, French, American, New Zealander, etc.), like the Symbolists, The Blue Riders, the Italian Futurists, the Cubists, the Surrealists, and pretty much all of the new/avant-garde art movements of at least the past 160 years, was considered ground breaking, scandalous, unfinished, and often undeserving of the label “art” at the time they were presented to the world.
So, how come we admire their work now? And of course, let’s face it, not everyone admires every style- the diversity of opinion and appreciation amongst art lovers mirrors the diversity of style and message coming from the world’s myriad artists. Remember though, works by the Impressionists for example, admired by (almost) everyone in the room, were not universally well received upon their introduction to the world stage in the 1870s.
So, what makes art, Art?
If we go to a standard dictionary identification of art, we can look at Merriam Webster’s definition of art as the expression of “a personal, unanalyzable creative power” & a “decorative or illustrative element…” so the overall idea is that art is the “result of an artistic effort” (which is a “skill acquired by experience, study or observation”) often for “decorative purposes”. So there’s no judgement of good or bad there, which leaves the artness in art open to discussion.
Art scholars, dealers, and experts site numerous reasons why a created piece is, in fact, art. Various pieces could be important because they archive a moment in history, have survived the ravages of time, herald a change in artistic style or mentality, as a monumental break from tradition.
A piece can be important for collectors because of its collectibility or its perceived potential to rise in value in the future, but that can also be subject to public opinion and social media exposure (think of the recent rise in value of meme stocks like AMC).
Whether art needs to be beautiful to be art is a whole other question, as beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and the eye varies so much from individual to individual.
So, while I’ve touched on some of the issues in the debate on what fits the bill as art, there are still so many other concepts to consider, including but not limited to the background & training of the artist ( which itself leads to the genres of Outsider/Primitive/Naive art), the time period and culture within which a piece is created, the message of the artist, and the purpose of the object itself.
So that said, I leave an opening for the discussion to continue in the future, and so… the debate continues…
profvalfranco 