More Art Discussions

I received a comment from one of you out there concerning my 1st post on art (see “One Man’s Art is Another Man’s ….Stuff” dated 01 Oct).
The mystery person’s comment to me was …

I find your blog interesting because you are sharing your tour but you need to have a better knowledge of contemporary art before being so critical-sounds to me like the Chinese artists have come a long way-and do know what thery (sic) are doing.I hope you have the opportunity to see more art exhibits and come to a better understanding of what art really is.

OK, you caught me. I am art illiterate. I admit it.
Here is my artistic "resume" in order of appearance…

• Tampa Museum (Tampa, circa 1970’s)
• Smithsonian (Wash DC 1976)
• High Museum (Atlanta 1986/87/88)
• Rembrandt Museum (Amsterdam 1989)
• The Van Goh Museum (Amsterdam 1989)
• The Louve (Paris 1989)
• The D’Orsay (Paris 1989)
• Spartanburg Art Center (the old one) (Spartanburg (2000)
• Sichuan Art Museum (Chengdu 2007)
• Sichuan University Museum (Chengdu 2007)

I married a woman who has forgotten more about art than I will ever learn in 9 lifetimes. If it wasn’t for her, my “resume” would have probably ended right after the Smithsonian.
I admit I can’t draw a straight line even with a ruler and I think you are supposed to color inside the lines.
I really do believe Monet, Manet and their friends were all near sighted.
I do believe that when museums display “Sketches on a Theme by (insert artist name here)” that those drawings were the practice sketches that the artist never intended to use which he threw away and somebody did a dumpster dive and retrieved them and sold them on the 19th century e-bay black market.
I do believe that the Van Goh museum in Amsterdam was the best museum I ever visited because it showed nothing but his work from his normal days to his insane days so you can witness his progression (or regression if you will).
And I have suffered Art Museum Sensory Overload on Friday, 10 Nov 1989 with my wife after 4 days of nonstop viewing and discussion but at least I now know why that painting of naked lady having a picnic lunch with other fully clothed men and women is such an important piece and why it was so controversial when originally released (thank you, Elise for teaching me and for being the only person reading this who understands that obscure reference).

So, back to the comment that I should be more educated before being so critical.
I agree - to a point.
But notice I never said I didn’t like the art itself. My comment was that they don’t know how to DO art - as in display. Presentation is as much a part of the art as the art itself. Paper clamps, straight pins, dirty venues don’t say “I am proud of my art! Come see me!” No, I think it says “Yeah, whatever. Somebody said we should have a museum. Here’s ten bucks, Mr. Curator, go make one.”

As a government, as a country, and as culture in general, I think the country is very proud of their art that is older than 200 years as is evidenced everywhere. But when it comes to their “artistic voice” in the modern world, they haven’t found it yet (or perhaps, maybe they haven’t RE-found it, yet). Individual artists at work may be creating the individual sounds to make that voice, but until the populace decides how to combine and project those “sounds” into one “organized and eloquent voice” I think the results will follow the quote of that famous guy who once said "There are no awful sounds. There are no ugly colors. There are only unfortunate combinations" (Again, thank you, Elise).
And I think that particular museum is an unfortunate combination and I stand by my uneducated opinion.

And that is about as deep as I guess I have ever been! Whew!

Now that I have laid myself open to the world for anybody to slam (including my name and my picture) – I now have to be curious as which one of you out there made that anonymous comment (Just in case I need to start my “uh, oh – I really stepped in it now” contrition speech)?