I had to do a quick post on THIS STORY out of Switzerland, via an Australian news service.
Seems that art expert Katja Schneider (ALERT: Tim’s first rule of Life in the Real World – "EXPERTS GROW ON TREES") of the State Art Museum of Moritzburg in Saxony-Anhalt (everyone got that located on their globe, now?) had pegged the artwork of a local chimp as that of the famous (??) painter Ernst Wilhelm Nay.
He really is famous. Honest! He won a Guggenheim prize, and everything, so you can be assured that he is a GENIUS.
According to the article;
"The canvas was actually the work of Banghi, a 31-year-old female chimp at the local zoo.
While Banghi likes to paint, she is not able to build up much of a body of work as her mate Satscho generally destroys her paintings before they can get to the gallery."
See? Even in the animal world, creative types are misunderstood and oppressed.
Now, animal "art" is nothing new, but this expert got caught in a big faux-pas, and it must be explained in some way.
There can really only be two explanations: Either chimps are under-appreciated as creative artists, or a lot of modern "art" is meaningless garbage.
Which way do you think the art community will split on THIS one?
Can we look forward to a major retrospective of Banghi’s surviving works?
Bilge. I did like the venus di milo topiary though!
Tim, Do you object to non-representational art as a genre? what criterion does one use to judge non-representational art?
If we counting votes, i vote for “meaningless garbage.” Have you noticed how much trash art can be found on college campus quads, large and small? It’s as if someone passed a law requiring all colleges and univeristies to have at least piece of art-crud on their lawns. Really, once you notice it, you’ll see it all over.
I like to think that my generation (I’m 28) is working hard to undo the sins of our parents and in some cases, grandparents. A lot of it seems to do with thier complete lack of asthetic taste.
Everything from bad liturgical music and watered down doctrine, to bad coffee and watered down beer.
“There can really only be two explanations: Either chimps are under-appreciated as creative artists, or a lot of modern “art” is meaningless garbage.”
Let’s not forget the The Chimp Movement in liturgical theology. They wrote some of the “greats” on liturgical decoration and banner arranging in 1971. 🙂
Where’s the link to the painting itself? I’d like to see it and decide for myself.
Tim, is there any abstraction that you like?
I like the Paul Klee paintings that are on the covers of Monsignor Giussani’s books, for example. I also like early Kandinsky. Sure, Carvaggio is awesome too. I can’t put one over the other.
It seems to me that many Christians can’t appreciate abstraction in visual art or dissonance or improvisation in music.
Ryan,
I think you’re right about that!
For me, it’s not a matter of appreciating or not appreciating…it’s a matter of what’s appropriate in a church. I’m a big fan of Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, Pollock, et al, and my grad studies were in modern American poetry. However, I don’t want a Klee behind the altar, and I don’t want to hear Eliot’s “Wasteland” read from the ambo instead of the gospel.
Nice photo of Cornelius. It really sets the stage for the discussion.
HOO BOY FR. P., don’t get me started on the banners from the 70’s! they were designed so they could be replaced seasonally, but so many churches are still using the SAME banners they bought back then, and they were ugly as sin to start with, and they don’t even bother to change them seasonally. grrrrrr.
I’m with RyanHerr. Where’s the photo?
Ryan–
I have no problem with non-representational art, as I hold it to exactly the same standard as art that looks like something solid. It has to be beautiful, or at least pretty.
That’s why I apparently have no taste, as I like a Kinkade cottage scene better than the Mona Lisa. (On the upside, I can think of one piece of classic painting I like… too bad it’s on a ceiling, so it can’t tour much.)
Any art critic who thinks whatever a monkey draws is truly art ought to fired …
and replaced by a monkey.
Out of respect for combox etiquette, I am saving my lengthy ruminations on abstract, non-representational and traditional art for an upcoming post.
In short, I think that non-representational art is more “aesthetic” than “artistic”. It lacks some necessary ingredients for a fully human artistic experience.
Tim J. wrote: In short, I think that non-representational art is more “aesthetic” than “artistic”. It lacks some necessary ingredients for a fully human artistic experience.
I look forward to reading the upcoming post. Be careful when defining those ‘necessary ingredients for a fully human artistic experience.’ It’s gonna be harder than you think to define criteria that excludes everything you want to exclude and includes everything you want to include.
LOL I actually see animal art as being more legitimate than the people non-representational art. There’s no pretension. Animals’re doing it cuz it’s fun for them to smear paint on a canvas. but it’s also fun for them to fling poo, so that kind of keeps it in focus 😉
It’s kind of like looking at fluffy clouds… entirely random, and if you see something, you see something. If the scratches and scribbles on the canvas convey some sort of thought or emotion to you, then that’s great, you experienced it, and at least from that aspect, you participated in art.
I HATE the pretension that goes with the “the arts.” Sometimes a dot is just a dot 🙂 I enjoy a little abstract art once in a while… but I l ike to enjoy it on my own, and for my own reasons. Not because someones else is telling me why the work is good or important. I just want the experience to be my own. I also like looking at the clouds, which can be considered God’s great abstract painting. Sometimes a cloud is a horse, sometimes it’s a mushroom, but it’s always just a cloud.
I am not a big fan of nonrepresentational art, installation art, etc. I lean toward realism, photorealism, heroic art (think Rockwell Kent or some of the old Soviet Union post-WWII monuments)– you get my drift. I have to say though, that occasionally in every genre you stumble over something that just gets to you.
While killing time in San Diego waiting for my train home, I wandered into an exhibit of installation art across from the railway station. I gave it my best shot, but had the usual reaction to it all– ick. Until I got to the last room, upstairs, way in the corner, where I found a piece that really hit me. It was the stupidest thing you ever saw. A broom. Standing on end with two wires coming out of the top, with a bell at the end of one and a candle at the other.
Now, I don’t know why this one worked. But when I saw the thing I burst out laughing. Not to ridicule it– but because it made me happy. It looked absolutely weightless. It gave me a feeling like I could fly, right then and there.
I still don’t know why this piece worked for me. But rare occasions like this sure keep me looking, even at the junk.
I still feel good when I think of that stupid broom.