Interesting discussion on art, folks. My two penn'orth on the subject:
I tend to prefer modern stuff; most of my favourite artists are from the late
19th or 20th Century (Whistler, Giacommetti, Dali, Rothko, Pollock, etc), and
like a lot of abstract art. I do have a block, however, with art that
requires an explanation to "appreciate" it: I remember seeing an installation
in London a few years ago, which was a room. That was it - a room, with bits
and bobs lying around, a chair, a newspaper, etc etc. It made no impact on
me; I read the card, which explained that this was an exact reproduction of
the artist's room at the moment a significant event in his life occurred, or
something similar. And I thought (age-old thought, this): does that make it
art? I have an impatience with that kind of conceptualising, which to me
often smacks of posturing and poseurism. I am pretty much with David Lahm on
this, I need to feel moved, or struck in some way by what's there, and not
have to rely on the subtitles.
When it comes to abstract art, I disagree with Diane that you have to know
about Mondrian's landscapes in order to appreciate his work. And what's
wrong with colourful squares? They're not to everyone's taste, but I believe
you can get the artistic hit just from seeing what's there. That said, I'm
not denying that you might get a fuller *understanding* of them from knowing
the history; it's just that, for me, the art, the genius (or lack thereof),
is on the canvas I'm looking at. I can look at a Rothko and be mesmerised by
its beauty, and I don't have a clue why it came to look like that.
Azeem, scratching his imaginary goatee with furrowed brow
