Let's Talk Art: Ref 1 Arty Farty 31 Apr 2020

                                                           

     Let’s Talk Art

               Date: 31 Apr 2020  Administrator: Steph Krynauw Ref: 1

Just to “stir” and get your opinion, I have requested an artist friend of mine to give us a piece of his mind on art. Here it comes from the pen of “Phillistine”……

                   

     Arty Farty

When I was requested to open this column, I clearly pointed out that I am not properly qualified nor knowledgeable to pontificate with any authority about a complex subject such as fine art.

Steph tried to mollify me by saying that I could write about anything at all. It might have been easier if there was a particular topic, not that I necessarily have an informed opinion on any aspect or question of what "art" or "artist" is.

I cannot even provide a vague definition of one of the two. Articles available on the internet that appear to have been written by experts on what art is, is so extremely metaphysical and nebulous that I am not able determine the criteria – how does one then write meaningful about a thing you don't understand?

I have always felt that "Art" must have an element of extraordinary talent and skill, a technical ability that only extraordinarily gifted people have, something that distinguishes their work from what almost every jackass can do.

But then I despise Tretchikoff and Klee. Consequently, my discernment is not valid because any school child can copy Klee, but one must admit that you will have to be good to be able to replicate a Tretchikoff, even though you may be of the opinion that his paintings are kitsch trash.

So, is it the human emotion evoked by an artwork that elevates it to something special? With whom? Tretchikoff’s 'Lost Orchid' does it, though it’s soppy sweet. If I paint a tombstone, is it then art because of the hidden skeleton under the stone? If this is true, the Tate Gallery would be filled with pictures of starving children instead of sawed-up slices of cattle in formalin.

So, what is art? What makes it good and special? How can Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais' and Michelangelo's 'Pieta', both of which required incredible skill and effort from the sculptors, be mentioned in the same breath as Henry Moore's stylized images?

Who determines which work of art is worth thousands of Rands or which is worth less than the frame it is in?

 How can there be fashions or trends in art? Had Keith Alexander sold his paintings on Sundays under a beach umbrella at the roadside, how much would someone have been prepared to pay for it? If a primitive still life that was painted by a housewife on her kitchen table is offered in an auction by Stephan Welz, it would probably achieve a higher price than the Keith Alexander painting that was purchased on a Sunday at the roadside.

If you argue that 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' then art is to every person what he personally considers special, even though it may be something that had been painted by a chimpanzee. If this is true, every effort to make anything visual or auditory is then just another thing until someone identifies it as art?

Mount a brick on a stand and call it 'building block' and if your name is Willem Boshoff, then it is art?

This is my dilemma and the reason why I’m reluctant to pretend that my opinion has value, the odds are good that I just don't understand art that much and that I am too much of a linear thinker without the necessary Insight.

This reminds me of the cheese shop sketch by Monty Python where the owner says to the customer: “I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.”
I apologize for wasting your time, but the blame should fall on Steph.

Philistine.

My own remarks:

• “Art is art. Everything else is everything else.” (Ad Reinhardt, 1913-1967)
• “Art is anything you can get away with.” (Andy Warhol, 1928-1987)

Regards
Steph