Many people think that I do not like modern art because I am a fan of realism. That is not the case. I simply believe that art should arouse some sort of thought or feeling in the viewer and for me, modern art fails miserably in that regard. However, a work of art need not be realistic in order to be meaningful. The picture below is called Me Playing with Ilanna, and, in my humble opinion, it is greater by far than any other piece of art I’ve seen.
This drawing is one of the many masterpieces done by Dassie Schuster, a highly skilled artist who also happens to be my five-year-old sister. As you can see, her depiction of the female form is very nearly as abstract as Dekooning’s. The piece even contains some strategically-placed blobs, just like Dekooning’s paintings. At first glance, this looks very much like the modern art I viewed at the MoMA last week.
However, I feel very differently when looking at this picture than I did when looking at “Woman on Bicycle” or “[Untitled].” Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the drawing was done for a specific client (i.e. me). We discussed in class how the quality of art often disintegrates when trying to appeal to the masses instead of to a select few people, and in Dassie’s case, this certainly seems to be true. The quality of the drawing is, in my opinion, exquisite.
Or maybe it has more to do with how the artist herself gave me a big hug when she presented me with her masterpiece.
In any case, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside whenever I look at this drawing. Because it symbolizes something so much more than the simple crayon markings on white paper. It represents something bigger and deeper than itself. It gets into the heart of what it means to be human.
And that, my friends, is what true art looks like.
I first want to tell you Ilana, that I’m sure your sister is a great artist. I agree with you that art is best when its commissioned for those select few that could afford great art. I think now a days, no matter how much an artist claims he is doing his art for his own personal expression, I think we have to be a little skeptical that he is just looking for his big break. Art though has changed in modern times for better or for worse. It used to be that only the aristocrats could afford fine art; whether it be a concerto written by Mozart, or a sculpture executed by Leonardo Da Vinci, the arts were reserved for the small roup of aristocrats that could actually afford it. Slowly but surely the emerging middle class made it that art had to begin to appeal to the people who didn’t have the capability to host a bunch of fiends for a personal concert; this is where Frans Hals took his part in art history by satiating this need for the bourgeois. Then we come to today, where with use of technology, every budding artist has a chance to reach to the largest population with a click of the mouse. Whether one is a professional, or art is just a hobby, people are able to find outlets anywhere, especially in New York City, to express their inner artist. People now think they are artists because they decided so. There does not have to be some rich person now commissioning someone to produce an artpiece; art is now accessible to anyone with a brain (using this term very loosely) to both appreciate and create.
This then brings out the issue of how we can separate the good from the bad. I understand why some people wouldn’t like abstract art, like DeKooning; because it is abstract, it is harder to understand what he was painting. At the same time, there is some incredible technique that DeKooning had to use to produce his paintings. It isn’t just a matter of sketching a couple of doodles while being bored in history class. There is definitely some sort of thought process, as DeKooning himself had to go through several different drafts before deciding he liked the painting he made. The first piece that we saw when stepping on to the floor with the DeKooning exhibit showed that he had to make several of the same painting with different variations before he was happy with the final piece. I wont deny the fact that the sentiment of your sisters drawing meant a lot, its more of the question of what can we expect to be considered fine art. To compare, would you rather want for dinner a bowl of cereal with milk made by your mom (because of the sentiment), or a perfectly seared filet mignon with a side of caramelized onions on garlic mashed potatoes made by Chef Bobby Flay. Sometimes when looking at artwork, not only does the meaning of the painting have to be appreciated, but the technique has to be considered too.
I hope to see many more paintings/drawings from Dassie Schuster, preferably signed, as it will probably be worth a lot of money one day.
I thought Ilanna’s post was very interesting and I agree with some things she says while passionately disagreeing with others. One of her first statements of how art should arouse thought or feeling is true. However, her conclusion that de Kooning’s work proves that everything can be art since it didn’t invoke emotion I do not agree with. Art is subjective. No one has enough influence to deem what is worthy to be labeled as art or not. But, I do believe that, in terms of abstract expressionism, popular consensus rules. de Kooning’s work is art because it is moving. Granted, it does not have the same effect on everyone as Ilanna proves, but I would not go as far to say that de Kooning’s work possesses as much conviction or purpose as a 5 year old’s scribble.
I think what also differentiates scribbles from carefully constructed abstractionism is the merit of the artist. Before artists develop their style and technique, they perfect the basic foundations such as perspective, gradient, blending, and color scheme. An artist must master the basics before moving on to perfecting their vision. At the beginning of the exhibit, there were realistic still lives done by de Kooning at the beginning of his career and all artists go through this phase. If you look at Vincent Van Gogh’s progression, you will see also that all his early works lacked his characteristic style and were purely studies to perfect his technique. Only later on did his own style and personal brushwork develop. Thus, it is impossible to claim that a 5 year old’s scribbles has the same artistic merit as a de Kooning masterpiece.
I might have to point out a little bias that’s apparent here (out of sisterly love of course). I believe if this work were put in the MOMA, people who have your similar views, would knock it, because they don’t “get it.” It has been pointed out and discussed in several classes now how the story behind the art and the technique is a major part of analysis. This is one of the beauties of modern art, and the ironic thing is that I believe this is exactly what you’ve pointed out with your sister’s work of art. When we go into a modern art exhibit, we usually do say, “My 5 year old brother could do this.” However, think about the sentiment behind the piece. Maybe “Woman on Bicycle” was created with the idea of the woman’s innocence and was meant to be kept simple. Maybe “Woman on Bicycle” was given to the artist from the artist’s little sister, and he translated it through his own perspective.
Basically, my point is that art should be analyzed with the history, technique, and message all considered. Therefore, in response to Zachy, I believe it’s not simple or even possible to separate the “good” from the “bad.” I’m never a fan of those words in the art world, because art is so ambiguous, and expression is different for everyone. I’ve always stuck with the idea that art is about thought and understanding, and when one of those gets deep enough, I think we could maybe start to label art pieces as “deep” or “shallow” as opposed to “good” or “bad.” This is just an idea of course, but I feel it’s a step in the right direction.
Before you write off modern art, I recommend you try to understand what you love about your sister’s art and apply it to the next abstract piece you analyze at a museum.
P.s. That picture is absolutely adorable.
You make an interesting point that art should provoke meaning, and I understand that as a result of your relationship with your sister, her art does this exactly. However, I believe there is quite a bit of devaluing of art here. Many of de Kooning’s pieces took months or years to complete. “Woman I” for example took an extremely long time to complete as de Kooning did many studies and continuously came back to the piece. He did not even know what it would turn into until he eventually arrived at the image of a woman. The beauty of the piece is that it can be interpreted as so many different types of women even though it is technically one figure. In fact, you can look into this a little more on the MoMA’s site at this link: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79810. His art took a lot of creation and inspiration, which is probably why it is publicly displayed and widely appreciated.
I am not saying that your sister’s piece is not art, because it most definitely is. In fact, I love that even though it means so much to you, it means a lot to me too because it reminds me of my little sisters and even the concept of childhood. That is not a reason, though, to say that de Kooning’s pieces are not “true art.” In my opinion, you cannot mix your relationship with the artist with his/her art.