Tuesday, October 17, 2006

hello, i'm pretentious

Is it just me, or is there a rule stating that all contemporary art has to be highly conceptual, at least somewhat disturbing, and slightly inaccessible to the general public? After visiting the Hayward Gallery and following a tour by one of its critics/artists/fellows, it seems to me that that is a reasonable conclusion. Toward the end of the tour, the guide showed us a fairly impressive chandellier, but said that he wasn't sure if the artist was a major new voice beacuase he makes pretty things. He went on to say that most girls who visit the Gallery like this artists' chandelliers because they are pretty, and they don't have a complicated message.

I found this statement to be a bit disturbing for two reasons. The first was becuase it felt as if the tour guide was completely writing off any contemporary art that was in the least bit aesthetically pleasing, as if he finds it too simplistic and popular to be of any value. The second reason was that he said this statement so nonchalantly that, as a girl, I felt a bit offended. It was like, oh, silly girls like pretty things and don't care if they mean anything or not. I feel that if people visit Hayward in the first place they are most likely trying to expose themselves to a type of art with which they are not too familiar. And while yes, some people may initially gravitate toward a style that they already know they like, I would think that most people who visit Hayward know it's a contemporary gallery and will wander around, trying to understand the art that they are seeing.

The fact that this visit was not what I expected it to be was also a bit upsetting because the gallery itself is an admirable space. It is funded in part by the government, which means that it purchases significant contemporary pieces with the intention that they will be fairly accessible to the general public. The Hayward also doesn't have a permanant collection, which means that the featured pieces change on a regular basis. I feel that this would provide Londoners with the unique opportunity to see a wide range of art each time they go to the gallery. There was even a table by the exit where you could fill out a comment card. I filled one out about a piece of what I call text art (a large banner with text about changing the world written on it). In conclusion, I feel that if someone who's not completely crazy about contemporary art like myself is able to find some way to relate to it, people like our tour guide can be a bit more open to why different people like different types of art. Different strokes for different folks, folks.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That tour guide can KMA. Just tell him about the impressionist movement in the early 1900s. You wanna tell me that stuff was simple? Well believe me, I'm writing a 20 page paper on Maurice Ravel (an impressionist music composer around the time of Monet) and his works are absolutely beautiful and I wish they were simple. Just because you have a tonal center, does not make you a simpleton. And, I might add, just because you go against all the norms and make something so ghastly that no one wants to listen to it, does not make you "holier than thou." Almost all of the craziest most atonal composers throughout history will say that they WISH they could go back to the aesthetics of Mozart. So these artists that make a stripe their painting...well, they're just moving forward and they probably don't expect people to like it, necessarily. Yes, they are trying to harness the same level of care and meaning in a stripe that the greats achieved in the Mona Lisa (for example), but I highly doubt they expect anyone to REALLY like it. And I'm almost positive the artists in that gallery would appreciate those chandeliers just as much as any girl.

So there. Haha.

7:52 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home