The article that I read was called “Loving the Lowbrow (It Has Its Own Hall of Fame)” by Erik Piepenburg on the New York Times website. The article was quite controversial and had parts that I agreed with and disagreed with depending on the viewpoints. The author, I feel, stayed pretty neutral for the most part and others that were interviewed made claims that I found I either agreed with or not.
The article talked about works of art that were referred to as “bad art” yet is still valued by some people and exhibited in three locations in Boston, MA. These works were usually found or donated by collectors or even the artists themselves. By using the term bad the author was talking about art that was crafted poorly or whose content was unusual and slightly explicit. I disagreed with it being categorized as bad art however. Just because a person is inexperienced or does not possess the talent of a skilled artist doesn’t mean they shouldn’t paint. Whatever was painted was done so with intention and purpose and I don’t think anyone has the right to refer to it as bad. The composition was thought out and some were even said to have the style Braque or Picasso. It may be many other adjectives, but I don’t think it would be fair to judge someone’s work or profile as an artist this way. I agreed with comedian Judah Friedlander and designer Todd Oldham when they said how they “dismiss the ‘bad art’ label” because it “unfairly and incompletely describes a powerfully personal genre that would be better known as ‘found’ or something similar neutral.
Art affects everyone differently and everyone reacts differently to it. I like that they have an art show that will inevitably evoke different reactions then the typical museum experience. I like to think of it as testing both viewers and artists by coming into contact with pieces that we wouldn’t normally hang in our living room. I think it goes back to the old saying of one man’s trash is another’s treasure. Friedlander says, “If a painting, whether it’s at the Met or it’s something somebody threw away, gets a reaction out of me and gets me thinking, and gets me mentally and emotionally, I like it.” I completely agreed with his statement. I also think that an amateur artist is just as capable of doing this as someone who has been skilled and practicing for years.
This also makes me wonder where the line is drawn for what is considered “good” and “bad” art. In the article it talked about how it was not called outsider art because it wasn’t good enough…but who decides where something crosses the fields and enters into the “good” category. Who and what decide this. I’ve always thought the definition of outsider art was a piece of work created by an artist with no formal training and were usually not well known. It seems to me that these art works would fit that category instead of being belittled into a group titled “bad art”. I just don’t understand where the line falls I suppose.
I think this is a very interesting article, because I too sometimes consider whether a work of art is 'bad' or 'good'.
ReplyDeleteI guess I would disagree with your reference to the comedians that favored no art being called 'bad'. I think that some art is crafted poorly or doesn't have the formal elements that are necessary to make the pice make sense. I think it is pretty rare to find an art piece like this in a major museum, but maybe more so in amateur galleries.
I suppose a work of art can only be deemed 'bad', if it is evident that the artist didn't give much technical effort of create some sort of deeper meaning.
I think I agree with you that people shouldn't put specific art into a category of bad art. Its true that almost anything can look good to someone, or at least anything can have imbedded meaning. Its very possible for a child to create something "for fun" that I end up loving. And if someone is inspired to make art intentionally this way, then it is definitely art, not bad art. However, because of my upbringing/environment/surroundings, I do have a standard for art. Even though the basis for this standard is "does it look good", it is still JUST an opinion I guess, which means these "bad artists" just need to wait long enough until they get enough "bad opinions" in high places. They'll all be famous before you know it.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of reminds me of the saying that many people use when referring to a hairless chihuahua or something of that sort, "It's so ugly, it's cute." I think it's possible that there is art that is so bizarre, so amateur, so wrong in every way, that it could be considered something good. I think that merely because of the discussion and controversy work like this bring to the art world, they should at the very least be considered something more than "bad art." I enjoy looking at these pieces. They bring me joy because they are humorous. And it is refreshing to look at something that you know really has no symbolic meaning. It is just what it is, and that is why it is so intriguing.
ReplyDelete