Art’s fair in love and war

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

By Aaron Wallis

Jackson Hole, Wyo.-If you're looking for art that comments on society or attempts at originality, you won’t find it at art fairs. Everything is safe and appeals to median taste because selling art is really the only reason to do an art fair.

I learned about art history from Charlton Heston and Kirk Douglas movies. We know that Michelangelo was not afraid to yell at the pope and run off to Florence in a time when most men would not have dared look the Holy Father in the eye. Van Gogh had nothing but utter contempt for the taste of his day. Jackson Pollock once put out Peggy Guggenheim’s fireplace with his urine in front of a crowd of Manhattan socialites.

Looking back on last weekend's art fair, I recall little more than the usual suspects. Bad wildlife photograph stretched on canvas – check. Earnest yet completely unimaginative landscape painting – check. Something made out of bronze on your shopping list – got ya covered. Looking out across an empty Miller Park, I felt like Wellington must have felt gazing out across the Waterloo battlefield after repelling Napoleon’s forces.

I see the problem as one of improper labeling. The art fair should be called a craft fair. Any great work of art has a certain amount of craft and I respect technical expertise in many artists, but craft has never held back a great artist and a lack of artistic vision dooms many artists who lack imagination.

I walked past booth after booth of arts and crafts that had little more than consumption itself in mind. Perhaps it was not all that bad – I saw a few friends, and I did buy one piece, though the artist who created the belt stitched together from recycled inner tubes would, I feel, agree that it was craft. Not only was it sustainable, but also my waist size was a small. So either bitches are getting fatter or I have gone down from a size seven to a three in the last decade. The artist responsible for this belt was actually charming and educated. She reminded me of the artists I knew back in school, unlike so many impressionist zombies.

Twice in my life, I had a booth at an art fair. I’ll try anything once, and I have never felt like such a dirty whore. The visual arts have a proud tradition of dissent, rampant individuality and treatment of our wealthy and powerful patrons with the disdain that that rest of society is afraid to show them.

Great artists have worked many crappy jobs waiting for commercial recognition. But I don’t feel the artists I respect, and artists who have been validated by art history ever considered selling work as the primary motivation for creating art. JHW

photo by AARON WALLIS
Wholesome art misconstrued by a perv photographer.
PERMALINK:
Art’s fair in love and war | Planet JH News Article: Arts Beat

Reader Comments
There IS a lack of imagination going on here. In this case, it is by a callow artist who can't imagine that not every work of art must "comment on society" or "attempt originality." It's silly to claim that in order to be called art, something must slavishly adhere to a "tradition of dissent, rampant individuality and treatment of our wealthy and powerful patrons with the disdain that that (sic) the rest of society is afraid to show them." It is also naive to think that all art must aspire to "greatness." Those artists who Aaron Wallis respects may not have been primarily motivated by selling work, but I doubt they were primarily motivated by "greatness," either. Those who became great did so because they crafted art that touched people's hearts and minds. Often, this art was a rebellion, a "dissent," an expression of "rampant individuality," but not always. I do love artists and art. I don't know Aaron, but perhaps I would like him and his art, too. I am sorry to tell him, however that his rebellion here is trite and commonplace. The path he follows in this piece is familiar and well worn. And while it may be heartfelt, it is hardly original. His art may be the real deal, but this tantrum is craft at best.

Reader Comments

There IS a lack of imagination going on here. In this case, it is by a callow artist who can't imagine that not every work of art must "comment on society" or "attempt originality." It's silly to claim that in order to be called art, something must slavishly adhere to a "tradition of dissent, rampant individuality and treatment of our wealthy and powerful patrons with the disdain that that (sic) the rest of society is afraid to show them." It is also naive to think that all art must aspire to "greatness." Those artists who Aaron Wallis respects may not have been primarily motivated by selling work, but I doubt they were primarily motivated by "greatness," either. Those who became great did so because they crafted art that touched people's hearts and minds. Often, this art was a rebellion, a "dissent," an expression of "rampant individuality," but not always. I do love artists and art. I don't know Aaron, but perhaps I would like him and his art, too. I am sorry to tell him, however that his rebellion here is trite and commonplace. The path he follows in this piece is familiar and well worn. And while it may be heartfelt, it is hardly original. His art may be the real deal, but this tantrum is craft at best.

Here is the link to the entire article and response

http://www.planetjh.com/music_arts_culture/A_106380.aspx


.

Blog