What Passes as Art These Days

This weekend I made it to three art museums (MoMA, Guggenheim, Whitney). Talk about your cultural weekends. It was a lot of fun, but it also got me to thinking. I mean what makes good art. The Guggenheim has a pretty large collection of Jackson Pollock's works. And I hate to say it, but I am not sure he developed the technique of "drip art" or whatever the heck it is that they attribute to him. Honestly, I was a master of the "drip art" technique, as a five year old when we called it, "splatter paint". I am seriously tempted to take some of my kindergarten paintings in and see if anyone will by them. And quite frankly, Jackson Pollock isn't the only painter whose works I think I could effectively reproduce (or rather have produced at one time or another). At the MoMA and Whitney, they have multiple paintings by Rothko and Neumann. Newman's contribution to the art world is a maroon canvas with vertical orange stripes. Yeah -- that's art? And to listen to the audio/critic's view of the paintings is too ridiculous. I wonder if the critics actually believe what they are saying, because it's really unclear to me what I am supposed to take a way from an all black canvas.




















Newman Jackson Pollock


And don't get me started on the vacuum cleaners. At the Whitney, the had a display case of four vacuum cleaners. And the "artist" in the audio was talking about the sexuality of vacuum cleaners and how some were masculine and some were feminine. It really freaked me out. It's like anything can pass for art. I bet if I spray painted a bike rack hot pink someone might thing it was avant garde blah blah and put it in a gallery.

But then if I am so dismissive of modern art, should I be harder on other art? Like Claude Monet. Sure I like his pictures. But what made him different from other Impressionists? Like how did he not end up being the equivalent of a street painter. Who really decides what is "good art"?

So I noticed this a lot at the Lourve and in Italy, and it really annoyed me. And now they do it at the MoMA too. Why do people have to take pictures of paintings at museums. And why the bloody hell do they use their flash? It's bad for the paintings. And they get in the way of paintings, so the rest of us can't see them, and it is thoroughly annoying. Just buy the goddamn postcards.

Oh and why do artists hate women? I mean Picasso must have had some serious mommy issues to paint women the way he did. Inevitably all modern artists seem to enjoy destroying the image of woman. Hopper's women look like men (supposedly he used his wife as a model though... ick!) and de Koonig's women look like scary, man-eating, scrawly monsters.



















Pablo Picasso William de Koonig