Saturday August 03, 2002

Art and snobbery

Every time I crank out an art piece from my design class, I always have someone ask, what is it? I've come to expect this from my parents. I've explained to them that art doesn't always have to be a still life or portrait, but they still don't "understand" it. Nevertheless, they try to appreciate it anyway, which is cool. They don't scoff at that which doesn't fit their preferences.

But my parents have nothing on these people who have decided that they have the authority to say what is art, and what is not. If it's not a pretty portrait painted in the style of classical realism, it's not art. If it does not look like it came from several hundred years ago, it's not art. One wonders if they still consider a painting as art if it does not contain cherubs or fairies.

I love Mark Rothko. His paintings are beautiful. Period. And I would much rather have a Rothko than a painting of a person who was so delusioned, that he didn't know he was living in the 19th century. Coud Bouguereau not paint the life he saw, the time in which he lived? Why did he paint scenes from centuries past? And what's with the cherubs? He was not around for the Renaissance.

I suppose rock and hip hop are not music, either, because they are too loud and crude to ever be called "music." And they don't use violins either! How dare they think this noise could pass for music? ROTFL