Art allows several approaches: one can see it from the standpoint of technical, historical, conceptual, spiritual, etc.
However, the prevailing view in the ordinary people (the pedestrian) is a technical standpoint. For ordinary people is very important to master the technique and the exact representation of reality (they prefer things precooked), the ordinary people usually prefer realism to abstract, and among other things, have the judgment that Picasso could not paint and the Mona Lisa is the best work of art of all time, but not sure why.
I recently read an article attacking the contemporary art being snobbish, and putting material interests on the true meaning of art, according to the author, the contemporary artist making performance, video art, installations, etc. only look for money, and the art galleries, auction houses and museums are accomplices in this task: A very common view of the ordinary people. But he made a question that made me think: is it possible to compare a lot of chairs superimposed (not mentioned author or title of the work) with the Mona Lisa by Leonardo? It’s a rhetorical question whose answer is guessed, must be: “The Mona Lisa is the greatest work of art of all time and these chairs cannot even be called art: of course not, there’s no point of comparison, the art and artists of the century have no hope “. So what should we do? Should we paint Mona Lisa’s to infinity and beyond? If it is so, then we will be lost.
The fascinating thing is that these same people, when visiting Paris, enters the Louvre and makes a queue of more than an hour to see the Mona Lisa, spontaneously says: So much for this? You would be kidding! There are many better pictures in this museum, why all the fuss?
The Chairs that were mention by the “art critic” are: Work No. 925 Chairs, 2008 by Martin Creed.
Leave a Reply