This society seems to question itself a lot when it comes between the difference of good and "bad" art, but we fail to ask what "art" is in the first place. According to Webster, art is "a skill acquired by experience, study, or observation". Interesting...
When you walk into a McDonalds in Manhattan, what is the first thing you notice? Is it the new green decor? The new beige seats? The obviously over weight lady in front of you still scarfing down fries when she probably should've stopped doing a week ago? Most people would parlay themselves to the first two suggestions because they are the most surprising at this point in time. Why? Because most people, which include my hoodlum friends, still ask why McDonalds would strip away their ever so welcoming yellow and red walls, gritty tiles with grey seats hovering above them, and replace it with a Starbucks-esque environment for pompous jerks. Obese pompous jerks at that. According to Ratna Bhushan of The Economic Times, this is indeed the idea and image the execs up at McDonalds are looking for. Oh joy.
Do I miss the old McDonalds? Yes. In fact, heck yes. What I miss the most was its overall gritty/urban feel, as if everyone on my block belonged inside having a Sunday dinner. Not because the food was all that great, but because that was the one place where mom could get me a warm apple pie (cause at the time she couldn't bake), or where I can watch a group of older guys rap battle and, without shame, use "eat you like a Big Mac" as a punch line. Those were only some of the things that were really close to my heart growing up. It really made me want to look beyond the danger and grime of my neighborhood and try to find the beauty of life no matter where I was at. Thats what I call art. To most they call it an eye sore. Guys like me just call those people bad names behind their backs.
Do I think that there are such things as bad art? I honestly do not know. While watching a popular television show Dexter, titular character Dexter often looks at his serial killings as works of art in his own way. Obviously, any "civilized" person would look at this as both sick and twisted. But what of the uncivilized? Does this make said person any less human (physically and biologically speaking at least)? No, it does not. So I do not feel it is our right to judge art based on what actually makes it, rather its purpose and what emotions it brings to us. Of course, I do feel that some works of art really should not see the light of day (see rapper Ron Brownz whole catalogue), but many very very VERY ill advised people tend to listen to him, so why not? Obviously, there is such a thing as unprofessional and professional art. But either one can make you feel the same about a specific subject, or even totally different. Either way, it makes you feel something. That alone is beautiful.
Aside from the fact that I do not really consider anything to not be bad art, I DO have some favorites. Three of my favorites are Damien Hirst's For the Love of God, Andy Warhol's Rorschach & Caravaggio's The Taking of Christ respectively.
All three of these works get my mind working in so many ways that it is very hard to construct and pinpoint my ideas into word. But in a more concise way to put it together, all three works give me a sort of want to look into my view on both religion and human concept. To conclude, art is basically up for its viewer to decide on. Personally, I believe anyone's guess on what should be accepted as art and what is good and bad art is just as good as mine. Unless you are a Ron Brownz lover. Cause then you are very limited in what you can say.
Don't sweat the technique.
No comments:
Post a Comment