“I could have done that.”
“That isn’t art; that’s a mess.”
“My kid could have done that.”
And my favorite one of all: “Anyone can do that.”
On the outside when I hear these verbal responses to works within the arena of Modern Art, I just smile, that fake smile that I give people when there is something snarky playing itself out inside my head. I hear this often, especially given my level of engagement with art in general and my predilection for modern art specifically.
That is why I had to snap this book off the shelf the moment that I saw it. I could not wait to see in print the explanation that I sometimes cannot codify or outwardly articulate when people say the above statements about various modern works. I often find that my understanding of the works is so heavily embedded in so much that is outside of the artwork, such as the time period within history, the financial circumstances of the artists, as well as the cultural environment within which the artists lived at the time of creation. For me, all of these dynamics are in play when I see a modern work. There is so much to be read and having a hint of the backstory enriches the experience of seeing the work. Having a hint of the backstory allows me to step back in time and extract understandings about the present. It allows me to gather foresight to use as steam to power my engines for the future.
Sounds convoluted? Ok, how about this…
I also look at modern art as the representation of a catalytic societal change….a change where people began to question why things were or had been as they were.
This is the number one thing that draws me to modern art. Modern art, as in art of the mid 1800s reaching into the 1970s is art that represents a challenge…a challenge to the canon and a challenge to institutional expectations.
Modern Art is belligerent, but not just for the sake of being belligerent. Its belligerence is rooted in the question of “why.” Why do we like and expect human aesthetical production to conform to a predetermined standard that was established by an institutional edict that does not represent a diverse point of view? This is my take on the essential meaning of the modern art period. I could be wrong (but in this case, I actually do not think that I am). I revel in modern art because it serves up a challenging question about what we like. Do we like certain works of art, architecture, sculpture or photography because we like it or because someone else told us that this is good? Do we appreciate a work of human production because we understand the backstory embedded in the work, or because someone told us that this is a good piece of art?
I think that my affinity for modern art, starting with the British artists, JMW Turner (who actually was not technically considered a modern artists) and Claude Monet lies within the answer to these questions. While definitely not the only examples, these artists of the early and mid 1800s created works that did not conform. Conformity negates diversity. Conformity negates alternate points of view. Conformity negates the value of the “Other” in society. In essence, conformity negates me.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that there were still monocular visions happening within the modern art movement. It was not completely inclusive as many discriminatory and exclusionary practices were happening. However, I think know that my draw to modern art rests in its implicit statement that there is value in the existence of the “Other” or essentially artists and works that fall outside of the canon. And that is most of us.
So, I appreciate the author, Susie Hodge for writing “Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained.” In addition to providing a little biographical info on the artists, she provides a brief explanation about the works' development and why a child probably could not have made it. Through connecting what the viewer sees to who the artists were, the author explains that each work is the amalgamation of time, place and artists' experiences.
And this is why I love Modern Art.
Comments