Uninvited Artist Posts Work at 4 Museums
NEW YORK (AP) – Paintings of President Bush and former President Clinton, accompanied by messages referring to the artist’s bodily fluids, mysteriously appeared last week on the walls of two major city museums and reportedly at two other museums in Philadelphia and Washington.
Harold Holzer, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, said Wednesday that a cartoon-type painting of Bush against a background of shredded dollar bills was found hanging Saturday on the wall near an exit in the museum’s modern art galleries.
“The Metropolitan is a repository for the greatest works of human creativity over the last 5,000 years,” Holzer said. “It is not a bulletin board. For us, it is clearly an unwelcome demonstration of self-aggrandizement.”
This just sparked an interesting conversation here at Chez Lane about the nature of art; my girlfriend is cool with the entire concept of art as communication, but she thinks that some of the more, ah, controversial works out there are communicating stuff that the artist never intended, such as said artist’s maturity/civility level – or more accurately, lack of same. Me, I’m thinking about signed soup cans. Do the circumstances in which these works find themselves in alter the conditions by which we’re expected to judge them? For that matter, are they any good? What does ‘good’ even mean in this context? Is the creator’s true artistic statement to be found in the creation of the collages – or in the unauthorized placement of them in a museum?
Luckily, we actually have an in-house expert on this particular topic (although he’s not obligated to sound off at all on this, naturally); I maintain my official philistine status with great pride. But it’s an interesting set of questions.
Art isn’t art until the curators say it is so.
If they like soup cans (or Mapplethorpe’s sexual images), then up on the wall they go.
The Horror! Unauthorized art on museum walls!
Well, Moe, since your “in-house expert” hasn’t responded yet, I’ll put my $0.02 in: I work with art for a (sort-of) living, and my eyes still work, so I guess I’m qualified to proffer an opinion:
”Do the circumstances in which these works find themselves in alter the conditions by which we’re expected to judge them?”
Shouldn’t really: but all too often do: I truly doubt whether the “portrait of Bush with dollar bills” would look like any “better” art seen at the Met, or on the bathroom wall of some Chelsea bar (where it belongs): but context can’t be disregarded altogether. I wouldn’t guess that this guy’s stuff will look any better hanging near a Degas, though: although that was probably not his point (if he has one)
”For that matter, are they any good? What does ‘good’ even mean in this context?”
Oh, man… here you’ve hit on the fundamental problem of dealing with any kind of “modern” (i.e. much of post-1900) art: the definitions of “good” and “bad” in relation to art have not only changed beyond recognition, but whole schools of criticism have grown up and become influential trying to completely eliminate the very concept of “good/not good” in terms of art (and have pretty much succeeded).This could be the subject of a whole book (and has, often), not just a blog-comment: my suggestion would be to go with what you like: opinions, after all, are subjective, and can’t really be challenged – unless you are paid for them.
”Is the creator’s true artistic statement to be found in the creation of the collages – or in the unauthorized placement of them in a museum?”
In this case, most likely the former: As far as the unauthorized “installation” goes, considering this guy’s novel interpretation of “mixed medium”, It seems like a good bet that he just wanted to make waves. Doing so anonymously, IMO, kinda defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, though: but then: he’s a contemporary artist: who says anything he does has to make sense?
Oh, and I agree with your girlfriend, BTW: and I am glad to that someone shows pride in their philistinism: is there a t-shirt I can get?
my college professor in art was one Don Celender. he dealt in coneptual art at the time. he would send letters to, say, city officials in NYC and ask them to imagine filling all the city’s manholes with red jello and get them to write back. His letters and the responses would be posted next to each other. and the art was all in the minds of the beholders. as it is now.
he exhibits at the OK Harris gallery in NYC
rhc
I’m still trying to get past the image of someone smuggling art into an art museum.