da Vinci vs. Duchamp

Disclaimer: I don’t want to fight. I just want to say my piece. And, I am in fact very fond of Duchamp’s “Nude descending staircase.” Also, I am not saying, brother, that Marcel Duchamp was not a pioneer; he deserves recognition for the questions he provoked as a part of the Dada movement. I am saying that some current artists take his ‘style’ and try to turn them into meaningful art. My argument is that Dada was a cultural anti-art movement. The art produced was supposed to break all the formal rules of art, defying all reason and logic. Today, we are no longer fighting the proponents of WWI or an intolerant culture; you are now just making crap out of crap for no purpose at all because you saw someone else do it. (If you are the exception, I would love to see it.)

I’ve always believed art to be a great form of expression, a way to relate to the world with an entire language of symbols. How fun! Circles, diagonal lines, evergreen… they all represent something. We see things and automatically understand them; we link them together in our critiques with the formal rules of art to make sense the piece at hand. So my question is why is the line between traditional and contemporary drawn and recognized beyond the distinction between skillful and amateur? It’s almost as if to say quality doesn’t matter as long as it fits into one of these two categories. Which do you associate with skillful mastery and which with amateur attempts? Hmmm…

I mean really. Picasso is a great example of how to blur the lines and break the rules. You may only remember disfigured silhouettes and the contrasted scene of Guernica, but Picasso demonstrated the mastery of his craft… he knew the rules, followed them, then blew them out of the water. He earned his stripes. (Not that I’m his biggest fan) He was a skilled painter but ended up with work that could seem amateurish.

Now, in the contemporary art scene there is an abundance of content, but a lull in craftsmanship and technique. The visual arts seem to have suffered the loss of impact in using carefully crafted images alone, resulting in crude attempts at ‘shock art’ and lengthy commentaries. We are slapped in the face with more literature in artist statements and titles on each piece that focus less on visual formality and more on rationalizing the meaning and purpose of the artists intent.
Lame. (If I wanted to read about your ideas, I’d buy your book.)

My whole point is, if you’re going to break the rules and be boisterous about it, learn them first so that you don’t look like a fool. I’ve run into many artists who have work that is less than ideal when it comes to pleasing aesthetics but would be offended if anyone offered an honest critique of his/her craft. Can you tell that I’m kind of sick of the whole “Art is subjective” crap? People have taken this way too far. While it is true that parts of art are subjective, there are some basics that are objective. (Enter the 7 pearls of painting by Larry, anyone?) These guidelines are a great start to making something you can be proud of. If you aren’t great at painting but want to say something, try writing. Our culture implies that anyone can be an artist as long as you have something to say… well I have good news for you, art is not limited to painting, so if you suck, move on to something more productive instead of paddling a sinking boat.

Thank you.