A Documentary explaining the controversial scene of Contemporary Art to whom do not see it as Art. Producer : Lilian Al Hakim Director of Photography: Hind Anabtawi Director: Peter Moussa
I find it interesting that; if a piece of art, like banana taped to the wall, was taken out of the gallery, would it still be art? I'm not sure, but I am certain it would have less of an affect if it was on the wall in someone's house and probably just laughed at. This suggests that a lot of modern art needs the gallery in order to be validated. However, if a painting of a landscape, a portrait, or a still life, was taken out of a gallery, then we all would still recognise it as art. A painting stands for itself, it does not need a gallery to validate it. I also found it interesting that this documentary began with showing the huge prices of art today, which in itself tells a lot.
A person stands in front of a painting a proceeds to inform you about that painting, its depths its meaning. The truth is, you have as much idea about that painting as they do. It has always been this way. The only question is..Does an art piece speak to you, or not.
The development of Art and its legitimate discoveries ended with Picasso. IMHO. Art became self conscious. In a panic, the rush to be the next great innovator, Art critics and gallery owners became, like junk bond salesmen, the commodity mongers of the 20th century. Throw anything at the canvas, into a room, hang it from the ceilings, if we call it art, it must be. The great con line...”they laughed at Picasso, so your laughter at this must mean it is art.”
Art is supposed to be a representation of the artists vision and their skill in expressing it. When an artist insults you with a bunch of rotten bananas on the floor, it tells you more about the artist than their “vision”.
Some of these "art" pieces are just too abstract to have an emotional functionality, which leaves me asking what's the point? How can we find any value in it
There are always these three entities of an art piece. The artists' intention (if there is any), the viewers' reception or emotional attachment received, and the art piece itself which doesn't care about any of the previous entities. It doesn't care about its existence and when it does exist, it never questions itself. Every one of these entities stands for themselves and are not comparable. So since it is nearly impossible to get the artists' intention, the experience of oneself is the most important.
“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.”
Let's just say, judging by the extreme variety of objects and experiences one finds in galleries and museums, that there is currently no consensus on what art is. Many recent exhibitions at the Venice Biennale have become entertainment for the easily bored. Two seconds here, two seconds there. Nothing sticks.
