I am not an artist, but enjoy learning about contemporary art and frequent museums and galleries. Recently, I visited the Dana Schutz show at Petzel Gallery with my friend, who is not an artist and does not much care about art. She looked at a Schutz painting and blurted out, "There is so much going on, I don't know where to look first. But I can't look away." She could not decide whether she liked it, but she was completely captivated. Schutz's painting packed a punch and for a moment, my friend experienced something completely new. It was fun for me to be there and see her reaction.
6
Better than Twombly scribbles or deKooning smears, but if it's a choice between heading downtown or taking a nap I'll nap.
1
More art about nothing. It will not change the world but help some richie diversify their portfolio. I enjoyed the Till controversy because we got to see just how criminally out of touch artists and their promoters are with real world people, their pain and problems.
7
@Intheknow
criminally? criminally? As in "crime"? As in committing actual crimes? As in what crimes?
11
Seems like bigger the canvas, the more people like it.
4
For sure, but I really admire also Maureen Gallace and she doesn’t work with big canvas, truly with microscopic one. Moreover also the price follows the size of the canvas, isn’t it.
So I think the people don’t like what they like, but what cost lot of money.
3
@mark
The problem with large canvases is that they cost more to store in a vault where no one can see them, that is, until they are once again put up for auction.
I was once talking to a Chinese friend about pu'er tea, an aged - and expensive variety. He said that in China, you can buy the tea, which is sold in 'wheels' and have it stored, in your name, like a bank. You may never actually see your tea before choosing to sell it later for a profit. I don't see much difference between this and the mechanics of the contemporary art world, where everything is treated like a commodity.
4
‘Best’ in the art world, always entirely subjective and more often than not a cliquish affair.
12
@Dump Drumph
Well, indeed. Every opinion about art has always been 100% subjective because there is no alternative. There is no absolute measure for art. "Best" is as meaningless as "Worst", or, if you disagree, at least you can agree it is subject to revision. Any perusal of art history will confirm this. The new is generally always reviled until it isn't.
As to "cliquish", it's funny, art making at this level is like any other celebrity system, and yet it carries this baggage from the public that it somehow must be responsible to other societal goals, namely something egalitarian. It is a business. Art has always been a business. And these galleries are not receiving but support, but rather are commercial enterprises. They are under no particular obligation to accommodate anything in particular beyond their specific business goals within the context of the art world. No one is making you subjected to it. You can ignore it.
Now, when it comes to museums that DO receive taxpayer money or other types of public largess, it is an entirely different story. There is where the real abuses, inequities, and injustices reside. And also where museums are in the service of commercial galleries in reciprocity and validation of the commercial interests (as has been the case with Schutz).
7