Art Thoughs
One thing we talk about and have never seen eye to eye on is art. I am not into it and Das very much is. He's shown me paintings, read me poetry, literature and discussed plays and all the while I have no idea what the hell he's on about. I simply don't see all that he is seeing in any of it.
When I see a toilet hanging on a wall all I see is a toilet hanging on a wall not a social commentary piece or whatever. I personally don't look at it and think it's brilliant, it doesn't speak to me or move me in any way and I'm honestly confused by all the hoopla. Even if a particular artist is not his favorite Das seems to be able to grasp all the undertones and "stuff" from whatever they are doing and appreciate it so he gets irate when I refer to it as "that art stuff" in a less than complimentary tone. Something he has said to me on more than one occasion is "When you don't understand art like that it's not art's fault."
I wonder though if that's true or even relevant. I actually don't think so, I think that when I don't understand art it is art's fault in that the art he's talking about isn't meant to be understood by me. Me being someone with my background with my education. I wasn't tutored on the fine arts and educated in what was proper and "good" and what was inferior and not really "art". I've seen art as something used to keep a firm divide in the classes, those who get it have breeding and those who don't, don't. The art he likes isn't supposed to speak to me, it's not made to call my name. It's made to baffle me with it's convoluted unspoken understandings, nods and winks from back room meetings and golf course deals. The understanding of art that has been lauded and held up as the one true way in our society is meant to be gotten by me someone who has a difficult time with innuendo and doublespeak. Someone who runs almost purely on emotion. Maybe it's not the fault of art per se but the fault of the way art is understood and presented to us, as if only "this" is art.
He's an artist, so the fact that he does see art the way he does is no surprise to me. I'm not or if I am I am decidedly of a different stripe. It has often happened that things that appeals to me he's torn apart as flat with no depth or vapid. His attitude toward the poetry and paintings that I like are just as dismissive as mine to his. I'm not sure that means he has inherently better taste than I do or if it means that what he likes is what has been lauded in our society as the "right" things. The things that show status and breeding and are markers of good taste. My taste is based more on my feelings not an ability to critique an artist technique. Does it make me feel something, me personally not the masses just me. I don't care if a poem is written in such a way that anyone can put themselves in it. So what, if I can see myself in it and through doing so feel a connection with the writing then I like it. It's not sophisticated I know that but I never claimed to be.
I get my feathers ruffled when I come up against the attitude in general that what I like has no merit because it's not the right type of thing. I don't much care about learning about the right kind of thing that simply has never been an interest of mine so what I look at, read, and listen to is picked based upon my enjoyment in my way. There should be more space for all types of enjoyment. The way I react does no more to further that goal than the disdainful looks and comments from others about my enjoyment of what some deem pseudo art. Even a reaction born of frustration with the status quo needs to be examined and mediated. Understanding and enjoying art in the traditionally celebrated way has it's place, I'm just not sure so that place should be on the top.
When I see a toilet hanging on a wall all I see is a toilet hanging on a wall not a social commentary piece or whatever. I personally don't look at it and think it's brilliant, it doesn't speak to me or move me in any way and I'm honestly confused by all the hoopla. Even if a particular artist is not his favorite Das seems to be able to grasp all the undertones and "stuff" from whatever they are doing and appreciate it so he gets irate when I refer to it as "that art stuff" in a less than complimentary tone. Something he has said to me on more than one occasion is "When you don't understand art like that it's not art's fault."
I wonder though if that's true or even relevant. I actually don't think so, I think that when I don't understand art it is art's fault in that the art he's talking about isn't meant to be understood by me. Me being someone with my background with my education. I wasn't tutored on the fine arts and educated in what was proper and "good" and what was inferior and not really "art". I've seen art as something used to keep a firm divide in the classes, those who get it have breeding and those who don't, don't. The art he likes isn't supposed to speak to me, it's not made to call my name. It's made to baffle me with it's convoluted unspoken understandings, nods and winks from back room meetings and golf course deals. The understanding of art that has been lauded and held up as the one true way in our society is meant to be gotten by me someone who has a difficult time with innuendo and doublespeak. Someone who runs almost purely on emotion. Maybe it's not the fault of art per se but the fault of the way art is understood and presented to us, as if only "this" is art.
He's an artist, so the fact that he does see art the way he does is no surprise to me. I'm not or if I am I am decidedly of a different stripe. It has often happened that things that appeals to me he's torn apart as flat with no depth or vapid. His attitude toward the poetry and paintings that I like are just as dismissive as mine to his. I'm not sure that means he has inherently better taste than I do or if it means that what he likes is what has been lauded in our society as the "right" things. The things that show status and breeding and are markers of good taste. My taste is based more on my feelings not an ability to critique an artist technique. Does it make me feel something, me personally not the masses just me. I don't care if a poem is written in such a way that anyone can put themselves in it. So what, if I can see myself in it and through doing so feel a connection with the writing then I like it. It's not sophisticated I know that but I never claimed to be.
I get my feathers ruffled when I come up against the attitude in general that what I like has no merit because it's not the right type of thing. I don't much care about learning about the right kind of thing that simply has never been an interest of mine so what I look at, read, and listen to is picked based upon my enjoyment in my way. There should be more space for all types of enjoyment. The way I react does no more to further that goal than the disdainful looks and comments from others about my enjoyment of what some deem pseudo art. Even a reaction born of frustration with the status quo needs to be examined and mediated. Understanding and enjoying art in the traditionally celebrated way has it's place, I'm just not sure so that place should be on the top.
Comments
Post a Comment