Comments on: Is the art at the Walker stupid? Who gets to decide?

By: RWBlake

RWBlake — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:54:08 +0000

Here is an interesting story on a piece of modern art I saw. In Philadelphia Art Museum, there was a medium sized room, in the modern art section filled with crayon scribbles. Yes, crayon scribbles that were inspired by the Illiad(sp. Different colors were used, no patterns or images, just scribbles.
I heard the museum guide describe how each wall represented a particular part of the poem.
My friends and I looked around the guide left. One of us said something about it looking like a 3 year old was allowed to color on the walls. The security card in the room who heard us summed the room up best, “All I have to say is he must have been a good salesman.” This is a multi-million work of modern art.
I can see why someone could say this. Some modern art is truly art, a lot of it is a good salesperson who sold an idea.
Art should be a concept that is connected to the application of skill. Scribbling a crayon like a three year old is not skill. Painting a canvas one color, is not skill. It may be a concept, but that is all it is.

RWB

By: Erica Mauter

Erica Mauter — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:28:00 +0000

To this point I’ve been trying to maintain separation between Ben Kaufman’s argument and the way he actually presented it. I think, though, that it does inform where he’s coming from. Namely an immature and kind of lazy place (not that I haven’t done my fair share of lazy blogging).

The more I think about it, the more I’m annoyed with the fact that he didn’t even try. Or maybe it’s the conflict-avoiding Midwesterner in me that thinks just because you didn’t get it doesn’t mean it’s all crap and doesn’t have value and that you should say so when you talk about how you didn’t get it. It’s unnecessarily mean and makes you look like the dumbass.

By: Kurtis

Kurtis — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:13:32 +0000

I don’t mind the occasional square art, or even the occasional bunch of doll heads in a toilet. But I’m not going to get all snooty with somebody who finds it all to be a waste of time. It’s amazing to me just how hostile art culture is to potential patrons. “Either like this stuffed giraffe painted green and skewered all over with tiny American flags, or go to hell!” they seem to be saying.

By: Chuck Olsen

Chuck Olsen — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:58:35 +0000

Here’s a story about some easily-dismissable abstract art I saw at the Walker.

The piece was a painting of… a black square. “Scoff!” I might’ve said. “I could do that.”

I stared a little longer. Actually, it was very dark blue. I read the description of the work, and stared some more. Eventually, some slightly-less-dark squares revealed themselves to me. Before, they were invisible.

I was struck by what this piece demanded of me. In order to see these other subtle layers, I had to be there in person, and I had to give it time and let it reveal itself.

Sometimes you don’t get anything out of art unless you put something into it.

By: Kurtis

Kurtis — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:20:20 +0000

I suspect that comeback would have a lot more punch if I had spelled emperor correctly.

By: Kurtis

Kurtis — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:18:34 +0000

It is also quite a different thing to say “I dislike the emporer’s new wardrobe,” and “I strongly suspect the emporer was wearing nothing at all.”

If the latter is the impression one is left with, though, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say so.

By: Kristofer Layon

Kristofer Layon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:08:55 +0000

I think there are a lot of issues at play in that student’s opinion and presentation of his opinion.

For example, I found myself agreeing with some of what he had to say. I have a graduate degree in design and also studied a lot of art and design history, so feel relatively well-versed in art (esp. 20th century art). And I think that a lot of the art in the Walker has dubious aesthetic value.

But without a doubt, we have to admit that the Walker deliberately sets out to challenge what “art” means. Does art need to be aesthetically pleasing? Does it just need to be provocative? But if so, then what differentiates art from other provocative actions? These are big questions that the Walker tackles, and inevitably I think some of this will get people mad. But I think the Walker is fine with that.

Still, just because the Walker is deemed one of America’s most important museums, does not make it beyond reproach either. Their expansion plan was extremely controversial and, one might argue, anti-art. They chose to tear down the original Guthrie structure, a jewel of modern design by a very well-known (and local!) architect, Ralph Rapson, as part of their expansion. For the Guthrie to destroy a valuable piece of modern art was utterly surprising to me — they curate art on the one hand, and destroy it on the other? Plus, the design of the expansion is quite odd. At best, it must be admitted that it has not been universally embraced. At worst, it’s arguably a failure both functionally and aesthetically.

I think the criteria for judging art museums has expanded in the past decade or more much like the criteria for music has; there’s no longer just one type of art museum. I personally like art museums that are fun, beautiful, and have beautiful and well-crafted works of art in them. So for me, the MIA in Minneapolis is my favorite museum in town. Others around the world include MOMA in NYC, the Art Institute of Chicago, and the Tate Modern in London. And I used to love the Walker, too. But even before their renovation, the Walker’s criteria for art definitely changed: they wish to be more provocative and political, and focus on multimedia of all kinds. Their drive to redefine art is certainly cutting edge, but it comes at a price. Hopefully the price their paying is worth it in the end.

So while I think it’s easy to poke fun at the student’s writing skills and ways of articulating ideas (and I’m not defending those skills), I’m not sure the content is either wrong, ignorant, or misinformed. I think it’s simply indicative of what the Walker is deliberately trying to do: redefine art for the 21st century, and expand its definition to include more points of view. But this is bound to be a messy process, and it will certainly continue to disappoint many people who think that good art is something that can be framed, polished, photographed, or otherwise defined by tradition as well as various visual or spatial criteria.

By: Max "Bunny" Sparber

Max "Bunny" Sparber — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:06:58 +0000

I don’t mind that the kid didn’t like the art. Not everything is going to be to everybody’s taste. I did have a problem with the fact that he then proceded to characterize it as being some sort of con or as being just nonsense. That’s a very different discussion that the subjective one of “did I or did I not like it,” and, if somebody is going to make that case, I expect them to be informed about the subject.

And, truthfully, I suspect that, if he had bothered to spend even a few moments looking into the art, rather than dismissing it because it didn’t meet his uninformed ideas about what art should be, he might have appreciated what he was seeing a lot more. The Walker staff is especially good at selecting challenging but rewarding work — and I find that rewards often go hand in hand with challenges, especially where art is concerned.