Ramblings on Contemporary Art (III)

Part 3: of Good Intentions and Context

“The artist is the child of his time, but woe to him if he is the disciple or worse still the favorite” (Friedrich Schiller)

The second key to the doctrine of contemporary art is good intention and, as we all know, even the road to hell is paved with them.

Let’s see how art becomes an NGO that takes advantage of the ignorance of the state through all the works which we discussed in the two previous installments: if artwork seem substantially devoid of aesthetic value, they are still morally “painted” with good intentions.

They are inclusive, environmentally friendly, sustainable, inciting, politically engaged and scientifically corroborated.

It’s funny how these works murdering art, insist on wanting to save the world and humanity: they defend ecology, denouncing sexism, blaming consumerism, capitalism or pollution, with the paradox of being formed often difficult to dispose of plastic materials and have a cost equal to that of luxury villas inserting, consequently, in the consumerist economy that accuse.

And how can these expensive pieces of plastic, be considered art?

And so we come to the third tenet that is the environment. The objects cease to be what they are at the exact moment they cross the threshold of the Museum. The works are everywhere, in the exhibition area or on the poster: all contribute to make that an object devoid of beauty or intelligence of its own, becomes an object of art.

In the great classical art is the work that creates the context: a museum that is defined by its collection of paintings, a square by a statue or a fountain, a historic monument by his cathedral or its architecture. Giving shelter to some works the museum tells us that their characteristics are extraordinary, their contribution to the aesthetic, cultural and historical require that they are protected and classified, stored, transmitted and displayed.

The creation is well shared and knowledge is available to everyone. Forever.

This framework implies that everything that is in this case (the museum) is art.

Maurizio Cattelan Untitled 2007

Maurizio Cattelan Untitled 2007

While the museums, keepers of true art consists of works that even outside of the walls do not change the nature of their work of art (Mona Lisa hanging in your bathroom, would remain the Mona Lisa, its artistic and historical value would not change ), the art we call contemporary needs these walls of this institution and in this context to exist as the essence of art in the public eye (Duchamp’s urinal in your bathroom, it would be a simple urinal).

These works are acquired by elements of daily life, are common objects, are structures with office furniture or sound installations with the noise of the street is the atmosphere created by the museum, which is responsible for the transformation of these literal replicas of reality into somethin ‘other. These objects, unable to create and bring something more to the reality, we see from the surrounding infuse this singularity that the artist is not able to give them.

Since it is in the museum is a valuable work, important is art.

The dogma of context is a ploy to not admit the inevitable consequence that the situation requires the use of a museum to exist. The philosopher Theodor Adorno and the painter and theoretician Kazimir Malevich had despised important museums such as the Louvre, calling cemeteries and claimed the disappearance.

They had not imagined that contemporary art could not exist without those same walls.

The following two tabs change content below.



Latest posts by PeggyMaltby2187 (see all)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *