As Jerry Saltz states in the sixth paragraph, “the thing that really makes it different: a one-stop art district”, Chelsea covers extensive types of art. What is author’s attitude to Chelsea such distinctive feature? Does author agree that Chelsea gives many novice artists a platform to show their new galleries or does he really criticize that Chelsea present “bad” galleries with a bunch of good works of art?
The author’s concern for the art world seems to be only for the sake of the isolated art community. He writes “The interesting thing about right now is that while a gallery may not be visible to a large number of people, it can still be visible to just enough people with money.”, and while I understand his argument about the importance of having enough patrons to keep the art world alive and running and changing, isn’t it equally as important to make contemporary art more accessible to the average New Yorker, because the high-brow, expensive atmosphere of the art scene is what keeps everyone at bay.
I know a lot of people already wrote about this, but it was something that bothered me too. (I thought of my question and then saw everyone else’s and decided I’m going to write it anyway.) The author focuses so much on “bad art”. “Bad” is a very general term. What does he mean by “bad” and bad according to whose opinion? Why, according to him, is the art “bad”? Also, he says “bad is good” and “more bad is better” which kind of gives a mixed message. If the bad is good then why does he seem so upset about it?
The author seems to have a great dislike for a large amount of the art at the Chelsea Galleries, stating only one or two things out of fifty shows would really impress a viewer. However, he then says that “you [the reader] and I will be thrown by different things.” So, doesn’t that negate his previous statement, since the reader may be impressed by more/fewer artistic creations than the writer has? Saltz seems to be assuming his audience thinks the same as him one minute, and then acknowledging their differences the next, which tosses a whole section of the article out the window.
The author seems to go back and forth on his opinion; he states that not every artistic aspect of Chelsea is good, in fact, many are downright awful. He compares one bad Chelsea day to “a season in hell.” Then, he writes that every city has bad shows and art. It is unclear about his opinion on Chelsea in comparison to other cities around the world. Does he like Chelsea better? Does he consider London, Berlin, and Los Angeles artistically superior to Chelsea?
The author seems to be very back-and-forth with his opinion. He finds himself not “bashing” but most definitely criticizing many different aspects of Chelsea… I want to know if he possibly had a bad experience, in general, that ruined Chelsea for him? Also, even with his back-and-forth opinion, did he truly believe Chelsea to still be artistically superior?
at the beginning of the article the author states ” you can see more bad shows in Chelsea in a day than you sometimes can in a year in other cities”. How can they describe art as bad, if it depends in the point of view of each person ?
In the last paragraph the author says that more money ensures the continuation of the galleries, which consequentially increases the chance for bad art. But then he says that it “makes for more chaos.” What is he referring to? Why would there be chaos?
While this post was interesting and informative, the author used a lot of jargon and references that I wasn’t familiar with. Examples: various mentions of particular art showings, “fly-by-night galleries,” “Damien Hirsts’s recent New York flame-out,” and “blue-chip artist.”
Tamar Lichter
Is there “bad art” if beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
