Ashamed to be an Artist (Episode II)

Again, the walls of the space they continue to call an "Art Gallery" fall short of their former glory. The "Telecom PROSPECT 2007 New Art > New Zealand" is a display of what art is in this country. Is not the purpose of such an exhibition to show the grandeur and splendor of this nations upcoming and rising artists? Why then are we presented with art which not only leaves the general public flabbergasted as to its reason for being selected, but also leaves artists who might at least be able to understand in the same such state? Is the "Contemporary Art" scene but a means to an end of those who are looking for the next big thing to hit the shores of the art world? They hunt for their fifteen minutes of fame as they try and follow in the revolutionary footsteps of Andy Warhol. I suspect that in doing so they are sacrificing the rest of us who have worked hard in study to become better skilled artists. They have slaughtered the natural abilities that are but God given gifts and made art into a mockery of itself.

And I am obviously not the only one who thinks like this. One such comment left on the wall at City Gallery is "There are many definitions of what art is. When did s*** fall into it? I am yet again ashamed to be called an Artist, for the mere fact that with exhibitions like this, the public's perception of what art is has changed or is changing from "Highly Skilled and Aesthetically Worthwhile Examples of Human Creativity" into "Expensive S***".

There is something about "time" which I feel is incredibly important when looking at the purpose of art and thereby what art actually is. It is something I had not thought about before. I have not alluded to it in my "What is Art? An un-philosophical viewpoint" article, but would be inclined to add because of this realization. If we look at art in a historical context, we can look at these pieces of masterful skill and appreciate them even today. They have survived through time, they have stood the test and are still recognized today as great works of art.

There is something about the "Contemporary Art" which does not fulfill this. They are often made for the moment, concentrated pieces on the process rather than the lasting impression or finished qualities. Many of them are temporary installations which will no longer exist after they are removed from the gallery walls or exiled from the exhibition. While some will be placed in another gallery space or location, if they are truly about the process, they would then become separate works, new works, and would only be attempting to recreate their former state. One such work was painted onto the gallery wall, and will subsequently be painted back over with Gallery Wall White upon the ending of the exhibition. There is something about art when viewing it in a book or on a slide or other photographic means, in that you know it exists somewhere else and that one day you could walk up to it and view it for yourself in flesh and blood. The mere fact that these works are dissembled, dismantled, or otherwise painted over upon the conclusion of the exhibition and will not exist in the same way ever again means
that the photograph of these works leaves one feeling hollow. There is no longer that knowledge that these artworks exist somewhere. If one cannot hope to one day experience the artwork for themselves, then there is no longer that interest or the personal desire to seek out and see these works.

This is also true for the materials used. Naturally, not all materials will last forever. Cracking of oil paints and the fading of colour mean that even the masterpieces of the past artists change in
appearance and quality. Today, things are for the now, and little importance is placed on the existence of the work and how it will fair in 20 years, let alone 200 years. One question that could be raised from this is that of works which no longer exist through damage or other destructive means. Are the paintings that Picasso burned to keep warm in the winter months
artworks now? Even if we have the photos of them, do they hold that same status as say Demoselles D'Avignon does which we know exists in the New York Gallery of Modern Art? Of course they don't. The same applies for artworks which have been painted over, paintings which have been destroyed in fires and so on. While they existed and could have existed to claim great status, the fact that they no longer exist, and we know they no longer exist, lowers their overall appeal as great artworks. The same therefore applies to this "Contemporary Art" which plague the gallery walls. A lot of it is not made to last, some of it made to be destroyed. You can't tell me a mountain of popcorn has any intention of lasting beyond the gallery or exhibition.

I think what annoys me most is the fact that this is displayed in our nations capital City Gallery as examples of what we should be looking for in the future of art. If that is the future of art, then I shall spend the rest of my days looking for a different word to call what it is that I do, what it is that I call myself.