Journal Posting #2: Night at the Museum

I was staring at an ugly piece of stained glass, absent-mindedly deriding it with my friend when suddenly, we transcended and began to look at it as Art. From that moment, we no longer saw it simply marring its surroundings; we didn’t discover any beauty but we found that it held a deeper meaning, making it worth more than just the quick perusal we meant to give it. I found it interesting that as we continued on, we found it harder to find the meaning of “beautiful” pieces than in those dubbed “ugly”. Maybe it’s because we so often accept the beautiful just because it is so. The ugly confronts us and forces us to make sense of it, to justify its existence. For this reason, I think it’s important that we resist the urge to reject a work just because we don’t find it aesthetically pleasing. Take a Thomas Kinkade for example. His work (though kitschy) is generally thought to have some skill and the subject matter is so bland that no one could ever take real offense.

Then examine Warhol’s Big Electric Chair.

This work does not have the same level of skill as Kinkade’s but it is of a much more divisive subject. One could argue Warhol is simply exploiting the death chamber, not to create art but simple shock factor. And they could be right. On the other hand, though, Warhol could be using the piece to make a statement about capital punishment. Without Warhol’s own opinion given to us, the audience is left to duke it out and attribute the work with their own meaning. I doubt any such debates could rage over Kinkade’s placid paintings. Though Kinkade may be the more skilled of the two, Warhol has produced the better art.