Why I will never have a career as an artist
This from a recent art exhibition announcement:
<Artist>'s work most often utilizes found domestic elements to create installations that suggest quixotic reference or function. In their materiality they are most often light and somewhat ephemeral, evoking an existence in a marginal space or uncompleted form. As <big shot art person>, Contemporary Curator at <Large Museum>, describes "[e]ncoded in <Artist>'s found objects is a process of repeated erasure and re-inscription of value that results in a rebounding of associations and the layering of meaning or systems, all embodied in one sign." The use of remnants from society to create these structures necessarily allows a continuum of reference from their previous function to how they exist within the sculptural space. Both formally and conceptually the work maintains a speculative or provisional sense.Huh?
Comments
Remember how we (I consider the government "we," not "them") used to pay farmers not to grow certain crops? I'd be willing to have the NEA pay art writers not to put forth horrific pontificating like this. It would be money well spent in my book.
For example, I went to a flick at the Modern Art Museum recently. It was foreign. When it was over, I commented to my compatriots: "Just because something is foreign does not make it art."
In this case, I think the writer was equally stumped (no reference to the 10-year-old dog) by this artist's "art." And so said writer used every nonsense word available in order to describe it.
Either that, or the writer was jealous that the artist was getting paid WAY more than the writer.
Not necessarily good art, but there you are.
Screwy, I know.
I've got colleges on the brain of late. They used to say some colleges are hard to get into but once in, you're set. Other are easy to get into but keeping your head above water ("C" level) is murder.
Art is like the second case: easy to do but a bitch to do well. And in my mind, that's as it should be.