Simply bananas!

(or the 'modern confusion' in art)

Chapter 2

      Originally, this string will have come in the shape of a neat sphere or perhaps a machine wound cylinder of pristine ready-to-use product with as many uses as you can imagine. But now it is in a tangle – a 'confusion' of string that's not really fit for any kind of purpose. 

Here is the important bit - the string is still all there! Just as it was when it was bought, but currently every inch of string is being strangled by the piece next to it.

     (If this was my string, I wouldn't rest until I'd untangled it - until I'd removed the 'confusion' and put it back the way it should be... all neat and in good working order)

     Whilst writing this it occurs to me that this ‘tangled’ situation can be applied to so many aspects of our life. Do we discard a relationship that once brought us so much happiness just because it got tangled?  Do we invest time in attempting to get it back to the way it was, or do we just accept what it has become with miserable resignation? 

From arguments to fist fights to full blooded wars the same applies, a perfectly well-meaning point is miss-understood and, in putting forward an ineffective counter argument, a tangle begins, develops, and accelerates into passionate distress - often with disastrous, or even tragic results. You may have experience of such a disorder in your life – a 'confused tangle'. 

Any road up - I digress.  When it comes to art, we have been born at a time where judgement may seem confused or even obscure to many of us because of a tangle that first began in the nineteenth century; a 'modern confusion'.

In a way, it's like someone has parachuted us into a place where people speak several different foreign languages. Two or three hundred years ago we all spoke the same language - ‘realism’. And in today’s world it’s up to us to make sense of it all. The clues are all there, but we do need to do a bit of thinking and scratching around if we are to find the answers

What we do know is that artistic endeavour appears to be sponsored  by our innate survival habits and practices, exercising our natural problem-solving brain. So at least we know where the end of the string is! If we assume this central premiss we can perhaps reveal a comprehension that may have eluded us for so long.

Complications in art, particularly in painting, first arose about 150 years ago - when 'baby confusion' took it’s first steps. At this time when, partly motivated by the the development of photography, artists slowly began to respond to the challenge set by this new art form. An art form that was developing rapidly and one which some labelled as "painting by nature".

Cameras but no film!

     So, photography needs three essential components for it to thrive: 

1, a camera

2, a way of somehow capturing the image

3, a crafty, creative person (called a photographer) who can come up with new and different ideas. 

But, here’s the thing, they didn't all come along together. Artists had used cameras for years but in different ways. Cameras in various forms helped artists with form and perspective, but they were still unable to capture the image (a photograph*) on a light sensitive surface because film had not yet been invented! What a situation that was, cameras but no film.

The game changer

In 1827, a breakthrough took place that was to initiate fundamental change in the art world when the glass negative was invented, and suddenly photography was born. Undoubtedly a 'hallelujah' moment for some… but not for everyone.

During the following years photography moved forward in leaps and bounds as improved systems and processes were discovered; and the first colour photograph was produced in 1861 (bet you didn't know that). This must have given artists of the day something to seriously think about. In some ways the camera could produce images more technically correct than the gifted artist seeking realism.

During the next few decades, the art of photography's redefined realism, taking the high ground, pushing non-photographic art towards abstraction, or 'distorted reality'. 

     At this stage and in the interest of achieving a clearer understanding let us therefore separate  art into only two basic categories, ‘realism’ and ‘distorted reality’.

Photograph. – From the Greek 'photos' meaning light – 'graphe' meaning drawing or writing. So, Drawing with light.

Camera - Latin, meaning 'room'.

.

     During the mid-nineteenth century a response to 'painting by nature' (photography) was formed by artists and developed rapidly through the emergence of new creative thought and experimentation. Artists began to express themselves in ways that not only embraced new techniques - mainly exaggerated colours and brushwork - but they produced paintings that were inspirational to other artists - creating a 'snowball' effect.

The claim they made was that this new way of painting captured not only the image but the atmosphere, or mood at the time; something that photography could not do (“so how do you like that Mr Photography”?). Well, it was better than just packing up their kit and looking for another job!

Some artists no doubt, will have found great excitement in discovering a new way to express themselves, thus qualifying their work for avant guard* status; always with the possibility that 'moving with the times' might in turn, enhance their reputation – a big factor in achieving financial success as an artist.

* avant guard - french - ‘Leading edge’.

But, whilst some were excited about ‘the new’ and leapt on the bandwagon, others, ‘traditionalists’ stuck with the more familiar realism. And as time went on, others changed boat midstreem.

Impressionism was the first, and probably the most successful movement – or *genre - to split away from realism (even today, Impressionism is one of the most popular styles of art) but up until then, realism had ruled for centuries. Art had therefore been comparatively easy to understand and judge with all artists seeking a realistic result.

*genre - derived from Latin-based French - ‘genus’ meaning ‘kind of’.

Realism had been sub-divided into several themed categories, or ‘genres’ which included: landscapes, portraits, still life, hunting scenes, tavern scenes, family scenes, religious, moral, philosophical, vanitas Etc., but all were realistic.

However, with the establishing of radically new genres, this was all about to change, and the result compounded the problem of understanding what art actually was.

The new and different ways artists were presenting to the art world dictated that 'creativity' was now firmly in the frame, and that being the case, there was almost an obligation on individual artists to, at least, attempt to find a new and creative way of expressing themselves. This they would do by taking their lead from those with growing reputations for innovation whose bold venture into distorted reality had by this time gained acceptance and respectability through familiarisation.

By the start of the twentieth century the proliferation of new creative forms of art began progressing at apace, catering for even the most extreme, and even bizarre, proposals of work submitted under the guise of new art. New styles, or genres, popped up like mushrooms.

Confusion rules

As the twentieth century progressed the birth of each new interpretation only served to blend creativity with confusion and the excitmentint of the unknown.

This raised the question, how exactly can we compare and judge art with such a melting pot of new and traditional art?

Today, art genres include, but are not limited to, Realism, Impressionism, pointillism, expressionism, surrealism, pop art, abstract, cubism, modernism, - (and as John Lennon said "ism ism"). They all served to complicate the issue adding to the 'modern confusion' surrounding art and making it almost impossible to answer the questions "what is art" and "how do we judge it"? Perhaps this begs the question “should art be judged at all”? Comments please?

How, for instance, can you judge a painting executed in traditional realism with a pile of junk – literally junk - standing in a room at The Tate Modern?

One simple coping mechanism is not to think too deeply, or even attempt to understand it, but instead, believe what you are told and embrace everything put in front of you as art; Accepting it as art but at the same time acknowledging that you don't quite understand it!

This way you can enjoy it all, like a kid in a candy store… even the sugar rush of blissful ignorance.

But I suspect that is not enough to satisfy those who dig for truth with a determined spade.

In 'The Facts Of Art' I have tried to keep my quotations and analysis of work limited to only that which serves to unpeal the layers of myth and mystery built up over many years, and which seems to surround art today.

In the following, I have also chosen to say as little about individual artists as possible so that we can concentrate instead on what they have done rather than who they are; not even showing the results of their efforts, just descriptions.

Now, consider these examples:

Artist A

After studying art (photography) for two years, Artist 'a' became a drug user and a drug dealer for a good number of years.

Then, partly funded by the government, he returned to his photography.

Some years later, he made a hollow cross from plastic, filled it with cow's blood, and photographed it.

At the time it was considered a bit outrageous and so received some recognition. However, two years later he hit the jackpot when he placed a cheap, plastic statue of Christ being crucified in a glass tank, filled the tank with his urine and then photographed it. He called it Piss Christ and soon he was both famous and infamous - both respected and despised.

But in gaining notoriety he became recognised by many as a true creative artist.

Artist B

Created a piece which was nothing more than a banana stuck to a wall using duct tape. In fact, he did it three times. The first one sold for $120,000. The second for a similar sum and the third is expected to fetch in excess of $150,000.

Artist C

In 1917, Artist 'c', in an attempt to ridicule the concept of art, took a gentleman's urinal straight from the store, lay it on its back, wrote a silly name on it and then entered it into an art exhibition where it stole the show. It received great acclaim and became a reference piece for over a hundred years. He made several copies one of which - created in 1964 - recently sold for $1.8M. He called this activity "ready-made art".

Artist D

Took a cardboard box which was used to deliver product into shops and copied it using wood and silkscreening. He even employed somebody to reproduce them for him. After forty years the original copy sold for three million dollars.

Artists E

Husband and wife Artists 'e' wrapped a 2.5 kilometres section of coastline in fabric and rope - one million square feet in all. The work was hailed as a great success and reference to it is now taught in the school certificate in Australia.

Artist F

Was so disgusted that his wife's work was totally ignored in an art competition, that the following year he entered his own painting: a blank canvas with a small, solitary dot in the middle entitled 'The Brain of a Politician'. It won first prize. But when asked to attend a celebration of the event and talk about his work, he couldn't resist the opportunity of telling the truth and letting the judges have both barrels.

So, how do we feel about these artists and their achievements? How do they stack up when we ask ourselves questions like:

Whichever way, I personally believe their success was only made possible by people 'losing the plot'.

Certainly, the eloquence and talents of the erudite art critic can always find ways to describe any of these works in such a way as to make a compelling case for the artist's creative ability (if he/she so wishes).

But that does not say even they actually understand the piece, art itself or even their own motives in offering a positive well-worded conclusive appraisal.

They probably boarded the coach at Dover and have little interest in Rome, yet at the same time, are very gifted at 'discovering' their own imagined discoveries and conclusions.

Some years ago, a member of the public, whilst walking around an art exhibition in Japan, left his spectacles on a radiator. It only came to light when staff noticed members of the public standing examining the display believing it to be an exhibit. They were absolute victims of their nievety.

At another exhibition an artist's work did not arrive but its wooden plinth was accidentally displayed on its own and won a prize. Modern confusion?

So clearly, this tells us that art has now reached the point where many people (probably most people) are totally confused as to what actually constitutes a work of art. What art is and what it is not; especially when 'experts' are constantly promoting the case or fighting the cause of works that may not be deserving the acclaim they receive.

‘The Church of the Confused Chicken’

 in California - perhaps there should be

a church of the confused artist!

Fact – millions of people worldwide struggle to define what actually constitutes a work of art.

Fact - millions of people don’t care a jot about art and never even think about it

Fact – many people are simply baffled by art.

End of chapter 2