Lecture Response

[NOTE - NOVEMBER 24 - THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN ENTRIES I'VE SUBMITTED FOR MARKS. THEY CAN BE FOUND ABOVE THIS POST]

For a nice change, today's creative act will be a response to our first three lectures.

After hearing lectures from several of our guest speakers, I must say that I am not always agreeing with the words from the podium. I suppose my disagreement is good; it shows that I am thinking for myself, which, after all, is the point of this course. But some of what is being said comes across as weird to me, and I'm not sure if it is because I'm enlightened, or rather, because I'm closed-minded.

For example, when discussing the value of art, we first must decide: what is art? Well, as any layman who has ventured into a MoMA can attest, modern art is weird for weird's sake. It causes you to think, all right, but for all of the wrong reasons. For an example, let us use a work exhibited in the Georges Pompidou Centre for modern art in Paris as an example (see picture).

We see that the work consists of nothing except for three panels, covered completely in white. The artist says that this is a statement of nothingness. I say that it is weird for weird's sake.

What makes this piece special? Is it technical accomplishment? Of course not; any house painter could create such a "work of art." Some would say that its value lies in the originality of its concept; as if an artist leaving a canvas blank was something new.

Does this piece have any value? Perhaps it separates the merely curious from the hardcore artistic, because surely anybody who is on the fence regarding the value of modern art would be pushed onto the side of detractor by this piece.

What traditionally made art valuable was beauty of craftsmanship and the technical ability of the artist. And though it is true that the rigidness of medieval and Renaissance art was its drawback, the works are still popular today because of the ability of the artist.

Look at the picture again. Is it art if anyone could paint it? You could paint it, given three buckets of paint, three panels and three hours.

No, I don't consider myself closed-minded. I just believe that art, especially as far as paintings go, has gone too far in its quest for the weird. That goes for poets who write purposely nonsensical randomness and musicians who hammer on clashing semitones and call it high art. The best kind of art is original AND technical; otherwise, who's to say what's a masterpiece?

PS. Computer problems pushed this entry back a day. Consider this week 3's post.