I was having a conversation about how Modern Art can sometimes be senseless to me… I wonder if I am simply not artsy-intellectual enough to appreciate a canvas sporting scribbles or circles or just a dot (in my opinion my nieces and nephews could have produced more challenging works); or a performance where the dancer lies still on stage and moves a finger five minutes later, with background music that has no melody, and leaves me with a sense of dissatisfaction while I desperately wait for the show to be over. Such works are often supported by long essays on the artists or choreographers inspirations, themes, ideas and visions, usually strung together by deep, meaningful (read as difficult!) words. Confusingly, the message explained on the leaflets fail to be expressed by the artistic work itself. Why am I then made to feel mediocre because I dont seem to get it? How are such works justified in receiving such opportunity and exposure? Who judges such work as deserving? What measures of depth, technique and research are required before artistic work can be shared on a platform? It bugs me that the so-called big works, the ones which make it to the public eye, are the ones that seep the biggest egos. In my opinion, artistic integrity is found when the work moves or inspires the viewer; and such work will rarely require long (looooooong) essays. I came across street artists who created better work than the grand ones being exhibited in the museums, galleries and theatres. Do such artists have to expire before they earn the respect and appreciation they deserve? Am I the only one who feels this way? The wrong people seem to have the right connections. Sadly, humility is bullied out the way by large, domineering egos.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:58:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015