Saturday 10 December 2011

Art

I once went to an art exhibition, in an attempt to introduce some culture into my life. The theme of the exhibition was “White”. There were some very impressive works of art there, but I must admit I paused and rolled my eyes ever so slightly before a picture which looked precisely like this: 
The theme was “White”, you understand. So the artist had given us a white canvas. And, just to be daring and cutting-edge, he had ruled a grey pencil line all the way around the edge.

There are undoubtedly those who appreciate such antics in an art exhibition, but I regret to say I’m not one of them. Nevertheless, in order to avoid slipping into the cultural gutter, I continued to visit this gallery every now and then.

On one occasion, there was an exhibition of the winning entries of an art competition – a display which I had heard spoken of most highly. There were certainly some beauties there – a treat to the eyes and soul. But I hope you will understand how I felt when I found myself face-to-face with one of these winning entries, a painting which looked – please don’t laugh – like this:

I consulted my brother, who was studying A level art at the time, on the matter, and he nodded comprehendingly and then explained it to me, thus:
“If you give a three-year-old a piece of paper and some crayons, and ask them to draw a tree, then they will draw a triangle on a stick, because a three-year-old thinks that’s what a tree looks like. But if you have studied art to degree level and beyond, and you draw a triangle on a stick and call it a tree, then that is because you are interpreting a tree and drawing your interpretation of it. There’s a difference, you see.”

Well, call me a philistine, but this is way beyond my comprehension. My interpretation skills clearly leave something be desired.

My view of art (and, if it comes to that, Art) is this: its most noble purpose, as I see it, is to provide pleasure to the viewer (or listener or experiencer). The performance of a musical opus which employs murderously difficult sequences, unnatural syncopation, and dissonant note clusters and requires decades of study to be able to perform properly is admirable in its own way, but is it really the sort of thing you want on your iPod? Experimental dance, in which the performers contort themselves into curious positions and periodically wiggle across the stage or indulge in simulated epileptic fits may be highly therapeutic for the performers, but would you pay good money to watch an hour of it? And a painting may employ painfully complex techniques, take many hours to complete, and be saturated with significance, but if, at the end of the day, it is ugly, then will you hang it on your wall? And is an exhibition truly a felicitous place for it?

Rather than sit here complaining about bad art, I thought I would share some art with you which I think is truly worth sharing. Each of the following works answers to what I think makes good art: it shows intelligence and skill, and it is wonderful to look at. Enjoy.


World-famous landmarks in ice

Atlas carrying the world on his shoulders




The death of Ophelia by Sir John Everett Millais (worth £30 million)


Three-dimensional pavement art, as pioneered by Bert in Mary Poppins. This example depicts a Lego version of the Terracotta Army (very interesting).


  Here are the originals, for comparison.

More 3-D pavement art. Tell me it’s not terrifying!



And pavement art need not necessarily happen on a pavement.

Images from the Hubble Space Telescope. I include them here as art because they are in false colour, so they have actually been “made” by someone.




The Hubble guys having a little joke at our expense




And you thought maths was just numbers? Well, feast your eyes on what our mathematical friends can produce:
Fractals - a self-similar geometric shape (i.e. one that appears similar at all levels of magnification), produced by an equation that undergoes repeated iterative steps. But don't let that disturb you: just look how pretty they are.








Entreat me not to leave thee, by Philip Hermogenes Calderon
Ruth and Naomi from the Bible.



And art hits the street:


2 comments:

  1. Lara, my view (for what it is worth) is that your concern that you might be a philistine (on the basis of turning your nose up at a blank white canvas calling itself art) is without foundation. Rather, there is, in my view, something rather not only about the 'artist' but about the art appreciaters who extol the brilliance behind such 'art'! Aren't they all really just a bit 'odd'? ... and self deceiving? I love the pieces you have presented as 'real' art - the type of art which gives pleasure and true wonder. And I especially love the painting of cacti.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amanda, who is having technical issues re comment-posting, says:

    If that white canvas be art then i have definately missed my opportunity in life...
    No ways that that can be called art. Most people including me would find what you find to be art, art and appreciate it, death of ophelia stunning, 3d art is amazing and the ice sculpture that is talent.
    As for the hubble photos we are in a truely spectacular universe to able to see such amazing sights.
    As much as your brother may be able to explain why the trees are art, I highly doubt that he would submit something so lame and dare to call it art.
    Some people really do seem to have a screw loose

    ReplyDelete