Archive | 12:05 pm


30 Jun

Should governments invest money in art that people do not understand?

That is the question that raises millions of problems. We take a painting: lines, cubes, circles, filled with a weird combination of colors. How do we know it’s art? Let’s say that experts decided that the minimalist shapes and bright colors make it original. They write very good reviews about the painting and place it in an international exhibition of contemporary art. Now, what should we understand from the painting? What is the message ? What will the common people who didn’t study Art History understand? I guess , the fact that this specific geometry looks better than the one studied in their secondary school.

In fact , what is art? Can we define it? In my opinion art is the original way of transmitting feelings and ideas. I consider an object being a work of art if it’s something unique, something I haven’t seen before. Something amazing but in the same time something that makes me think about its origins. What did the artist feel when he/she created it? One of the best examples that come in my mind right now are The Scream by Munch and Andreea’s last drawing posted on deviantart. I can draw some cubes and lines, and I’m not an artist. Do something to those shapes, draw some rotten tomatoes around them and I bet no one thought about that. Picasso chose to build a person with those simple lines and it really looked amazing.

Contemporary art gave birth to some wonderful ideas , but also to some very untalented pseudo-artists. All you need to do is to invest large sums of money in publicity and here you are, the famous artist. People won’t understand anything from your works because they have nothing in common with art. Real artists have the ability to impress and people can interpret it in one way or another. They can say it’s ugly , scary, scandalous…wonderful because: ……

I guess governments shouldn’t invest money in crap made with no reason. They should invest in art!