In the process of talking about how the baby boomers came into control of a culture that had lost touch with ‘good’ art in favor of ‘new’ art — where the most famous ‘artists’ in the world couldn’t paint a sunset and only comic book artists, “the last outpost of representational art” could render the human form, James Lileks beautifully summarizes why abstract art is ‘mule cum’, in the words of the the infamous Barry Ween. (Which is my summation, not Lileks’.)

Let’s return to my favorite piece of modern art, glimpsed at a Whitney biennial - a chunk of chocolate with toothmarks, meant to symbolize the artist’s conflicted sense of body images in modern culture, next to a gout of laminated vomit on the floor, meant as a protest of Barbie-doll culture that leads women to bulimia.

When you throw out the old standards - draftsmanship, composition, ability to actually paint a landscape that looks like a landscape - you get, in the end, a pile of vomit on a museum floor. You get lots of other cool stuff on the way, of course, but when “beauty” is discredited, you get barf, and you have no words to explain why the barf is lousy art. And if beauty is a socially-constructed notion, then find me ten people from every culture on earth; place them before any piece of sculpture from the Greeks to the Romans to the Franks to the Renaissance to a pillowy stone creation of Canova, and next to this sculpture place a pile of vomit, and see which one draws the smiles and wide eyes, which one invites the eye to study its dozens of details.

I am clasically trained in the techniques of drawing, painting, print making and sculpting. Every time we visit a museum I have to be liberally medicated afterwards...either out of sheer envy/lust for the brilliance on display or out of blinding outrage at what is so casually classified as "art" these days.

At this point, I can only enjoy abstract art if the artist is also technically proficient. Paint slathered on a canvas won't do it, neither will slapping together pieces of shit you found on the side of the road. And certainly not a pile of puke on the floor. "Oh, but that's also a social statement." My ass. You want to make a social statement? Write a letter to the Times and spare us the aroma of your used lunch. Grr...

I agree with Lileks. Art is no longer being produced for the sake of beauty, or even statement about reality and beliefs, but in pursuit of academic theories about what Art Should Be.

Hell, even comic books (Lileks' last bastion of representational art) sometimes get that way ...

hm. It's like censorship, though. Where do you draw the line? (no pun intended whatsoever)

I like to make what I call 'found art' - I once framed an interesting piece of rust (very elaborately) and gave it to my friends as a wedding present.

Is rust Art?
Is it an offesive statement to present to someone on the day they begin a new life?
They liked it.
But they collect odd art and odd friends.

I agree that if you just want to elicit a kneejerk reaction there are formats and media better suited for your statement.

but this is all just a minor rambling opinion.

I like modern art, or at least I like the kind of modern art that's the kind of modern art that I like. I'd hate to see nothing but representational art -- but I like representational art, too. At least, I like the kind of representations art that's the kind of representational art that I like.

For both types, excellence of technique (as mentioned above) is important for me, but I also need a feeling that there's a meaning. Odd statement, but true. Mandalas, arabesques -- non-representational shapes that contain meaning. Meaning. Bad word? Maybe I mean spirit.

Meaning is a fine word.

I guess what I resent, aside from folks making zillions of dollars and getting huge art shows for something akin to what Katherine does "naturally" with her bodily wastes ... well, yeah, I guess that is what I resent.

Well, there's art and then there's the trendy crap that trendy monied people buy. Like the guy who's name escapes me, a consumate shmoozer, in New York who runs a studio full of artists who produce paintings that he then signs. The actual artist is not allowed to sign the piece. Shmoozerman is totally up front about it and still the things sell for 20 or 20 k a pop. The art world is strange.

Yeah, schmoozer is that 'painter of light' guy...
Don't even buy a postcard. Bleh.

Hi Dave. If you're feeling really masochistic, check out emily's post (yesterday, I think) about the guy who uses corpses and body parts and calls it "art." emily: avocadocouch.com.

Thomas Kinkade, "the painter of light." Or something like that. The man who is to art what Krispy Kreme is to good nutrition -- over-sweet, over-priced, over-hyped ...

*sigh* If I mentioned that my folks have one of his prints in their living room, would I be banned from this site?