This is what gives modern art a bad name.

Yeah, so I believe I have already talked about my extremely underwhelming experience at the Andy Warhol museum when I visited Pittsburgh a few weeks ago. If I haven't here is the summary: most of the work, represented as 'pop' art was puerile and rather pointless. A lot of it was commercial (as is everything else, but let my cynicism not marr your happiness), and utterly trite. Most of the photographs presented were technically mediocre and artistically worthless. This is my opinion and if anyone is willing to make a valid case and prove me wrong: go for it. But I do stick to one basic argument: if a work of 'art' cannot stand by itself and needs an accompanying page of explanation in order to garner any appreciation, well, then it shouldn't be called art.

Incidentally, The Warhol also had sculptures by Ron Mueck. These were truly breathtaking. Mueck's work spanned a range from a 'self sculpture' of his sleeping face to a huge newborn baby. We also got to see a video of Mueck at work. Again, it was very obvious that there was nothing slapdash or irreverent about his work: every square inch of every one of works speaks volumes about perfectionism, both in thought and in application.

Now, let me talk for a moment about a movie called 'The Shape of Things'. This has Rachel Weisz playing an art student whose thesis is a person; or rather the deconstruction/reconstruction of a nerdy bloke with whom she carries on a relationship.

And finally, we now talk about the news article which provoked me to write this blog in the first place: the Yale Daily News carried this article about an arts major who impregnated herself artificially and then induced miscarriages. She proceeded to document this process and will now present this as an exhibit, which will feature videos of the forced misscarriages as well as blood from the process.

High art? Or crap? Who is to decide... the point, I believe is that society needs art as much as it needs construction workers: but there are lines of human conduct which should not be crossed. Not unless one is supremely confident that the results will be sufficiently compelling. And such confidence can only come from a supreme belief in one's own abilities to see further than one's peers. Unfortunately, all too many people, perhaps in the throes of a delayed adolescent rebellion against.. society, authority, an absent father, have taken it upon themselves to show us what art is and how the boundaries of sensibility should be redefined. Unfortunately, I find it difficult to believe that they have the necessary ability. Perhaps this disenchantment comes from having my feet too firmly planted on the ground and a very middle class, pedestrian sense of establishmentarism. Perhaps. Either ways, I believe that it is necessary to be exceptionally well at playing within the rules of the game, before you choose to break them. Being iconoclastic is easy: but measuring up to the canon in any field and being judged worthy, is I believe of greater import. This is why I am skeptical about modern art.