Thoughts on Contemporary Art

Tàpies, Varnish with black forms, 1982

Some months ago, I had to visit a contemporary art museum with some students. I won’t mention its name, in order not to point anybody out.

Pollock, Dripping with enamel paint, 1950

They were really respectful, wandering speechless around the halls, paying attention to the guide’s explanations. Right before enter the elevator in order to exit the museum, some approached me and said to me in a low voice: “This is a swindle”, “I don’t understand it”, “How can this be called art?”. Once inside, one of the students told the guide off: “Are you kidding us?”. There was a deafening silence: luckily elevator was quick enough…

Miró, Larks, Wing with
blue circle, 1967

I had on me suddenly a lot of answers to these questions... Students wanted me to share my position, either if I was on their side or on the guide’s. But it was neither the proper moment to do so, nor the proper place to give a speech, so I took notes of all my sudden thoughts and promised them an article on my blog, so here it goes: 

Rauschenberg, de Kooning's Erased Drawing,
1959

“Is this art?” What a hard question... In part, they are right: how much of a scam is there in nowadays’ art? Dropping pointlessly 2 or 3 paint stains on a canvas or leaving a chunk of butter on a pedestal, in my opinion, can’t be called art. Is it art the de Kooning erased by Rauschenberg? A colleague would say that what is artistic there is the art’s action that painting had as outcome, which is “killing the father” = “killing Art”. 

Goya, Saturn
 devouring his son, 1821

Are Klein’s anthropométries art? Well, this could take ages to explain. To me, art is what makes an impact on us and moves us (either appealing us or quite the opposite, like Goya’s Saturn). It’s a special gift not all artists have to be able to transmit these emotions. Just think about la Gioconda, what does she have that rest of portrayed women in whole history don’t? However, in her we found all of Leonardo, his magic, his mastery and his whole soul…

“I don’t understand.” To which another one replies: “What is there to understand?” Another colleague would have claimed that Rubens’ maid didn’t understand back then, while she swept, The Garden of Love. She saw a portrait of her master with little angels in her garden, which is, just a lineal lecture, attached plainly to what is represented. But she can’t go further, she can’t decipher metaphors and allegories. (Supposedly, of course, we should have asked her). Issue nowadays is that painting doesn’t think it necessary to imitate reality. We are facing plain surfaces with shapes, colors, textures, and that’s all. Viewer has nowhere to get a grip from, where to start understanding from… 

Rubens, The Garden of Love, 1632

“And how do I know there is something to understand and that I’m not being made fun of?” Well, that’s a matter of education, knowledge, as everything in this life… It’s true, though, that they are concepts hard to comprehend. In this sense, it happened the same thing to Rubens’s maid, with the only difference that she thought she knew. “But, is there anything to understand?” Well, stand in front of a Pollock, or a Palazuelo, a Tàpies, a Rothko, a Kiefer, a Miró, and tell me about it… I’m sure they won’t leave you indifferent.

“And because it’s in the museum, is it art?” Well, context does its part too... but I doubt that it being there is enough to be call it art. I could write other 600 words about this one...

Klein, Anthropometrie, 1960

Does it touch you in any way? Do you like it? That’s the main thing. And if you are still interested in the topic, do research, find out, try to understand… as it always happens in this life, not only with art, you’ll start to find out how much we are deceived and where the true art can be found…

Share if you like, and don't forget to comment on the comment zone!