What is art?

**Adrian II** · 04-19-2008, 16:38

Wow, Banquo, that was worth waiting for. Your impressions of the painting are eloquent as ever and make me feel all the more inadequate as a non-native English speaker.

Funny how both you and Guildenstern interpret the woman's pose as anxious. I think she has simply crouched down – as you do – because there is no shower curtain, period. This makes the situation more intimate, not less. And her expression is pensive if you ask me. Her thoughts are somewhere else entirely, not directed at the man, not even remotely connected with him. Maybe that is why the male, in turn, may appear a tad worried as he studies her in his shaving mirror..

We’ll never really know, will we? Therefore, to me, this painting evokes the painful void that forever hides in the folds of intimacy. These people are as close as a man and woman can be and yet they are alone, isolated, two non-colliding planets in an otherwise empty universe. They are apparently at ease. But we know that deep inside all of us there are unspeakable obsessions, fears and desires, suppressed to the point of silence, yet screaming at the tops of their voices inside soundproof cells and oubliettes in the depth of our minds. At quiet moments like this we tend to hear them – if only faintly.

On the other hand, neither is drawing attention to him- or herself, yapping on, making faces or disturbing the other in any way. They feel totally non-threatened in each other’s presence, even while their minds are absent. Maybe that is the true essence of intimacy: that you don’t have to act intimate.

It’s funny, too, how almost all of us complain about the ‘deluge of dross’ (as you call it) that passes for art these days. For lack of proper insight I blame modern capitalism, my default position. Art and economy have merged, museums have become (extensions of) shopping malls and mass entertainment tours, great works of art have become strategic investment objects. In 2004, Pablo Picasso’s Garçon à la pipe sold for over $100 million, shattering Van Gogh’s record. It’s a painting of a boy who used to come to his studio, wearing a silly garland and holding a pipe which he probably never smoked in anger. It’s well done, that’s about it. It was probably bought by a guy who never gave it a second look. He didn’t have to. The name ‘Picasso’ was enough. At the time, Picasso expert Pepe Karmel stated in The Washington Post: "I'm stunned that a pleasant, minor painting could command a price appropriate to a real masterwork by Picasso. It shows how much the marketplace is divorced from the true values of art."

I don’t think we have to rescue true art. It will no doubt rescue itself, or else it isn’t worth rescuing. I don’t mean to restore its previous elitist connotations either. The whole ‘art for art’s sake’ thingy doesn’t hold anymore at least since 1979, when French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu shot a big ******* hole in it. His research indicated that a person’s perception of art is closely tied to his social status (wealth, education, family background) and that ‘taste’ is a social indicator more than a personal attribute; an esoteric code, so to speak, that serves to delineate class. The lower a person’s social status, the more likely he was to treat ‘high’ art with respect. Those (usually from the upper classes) who were raised amid the products and creators of ‘high’ art were the most likely to have a more relaxed attitude, not to be ashamed at their lack of knowledge of certain art forms or artists, to be able to pass independent, even irreverent judgment on works of art and to appreciate renewal, iconoclasm and the mixing of styles.

But it can’t hurt to sharpen our wits a bit by discussing possible new delineations or criteria. Instead of the faux elitism of the past we now have faux populism that says: ‘Dude, art is, like, whatever floats your boat - you know?’ Yeah right. Only yours doesn’t float.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 04-19-2008, 17:46

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The dude clearly ripped a juicy fart, hence the smirk. He made a beard out of shaving cream and blew out his gut to simian proportions in a display of faux-manliness.The woman (his married partner) is clearly being a good sport because she is holding her mouth and nose and acting like she is in agony - possibly alluding to the Jews in Auschwitz as though her lovers butt discharge were akin to zyklon-B (don't call me an a-hole, I didn't draw the comic strip.) He holds out his hand and looks into the mirror at her, feigning innocence ("what's the matter? Never been to Beijing before?")

Commenting on art is about as fun as commenting on shapes in cement or tripping out and arranging turds in the bathtub as though it were the battle of Trafalgar.

Woah - you guys got my artistic juices running - i'd better go change my underwear.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 04-19-2008, 19:01

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The dude clearly ripped a juicy fart, hence the smirk. He made a beard out of shaving cream and blew out his gut to simian proportions in a display of faux-manliness.The woman (his married partner) is clearly being a good sport because she is holding her mouth and nose and acting like she is in agony - possibly alluding to the Jews in Auschwitz as though her lovers butt discharge were akin to zyklon-B (don't call me an a-hole, I didn't draw the comic strip.) He holds out his hand and looks into the mirror at her feigning innocence ("what's the matter? Never been to Beijing before?")

Commenting on art is about as fun as commenting on shapes in cement or tripping out and arranging turds in the bathtub as though it were the battle of Trafalgar.

Woah - you guys got my artistic juices running - i'd better go change my underwear.