The Five Strands of A Sedentary Empress

Pollocks and Bollocks

A. and I have conversations on occasion that leave us both tense and on the brink of loathing one another. Mostly, though, we enjoy it, despite the frustration and the sweat that starts to bleed onto our clothing. Our voices start to crack, as do our throats, and I always pace on my end of the phone, the cord twisting and knotting until I am standing with my face near the wall. It is invigorating at times, but mostly exasperating, because we have a way making one another feel uninformed and obtuse (I think she called me that today, more than once, but I ignored her as I tend to do). I snickered a lot, probably a little more arrogantly than I should have, because it's the easiest way to fluster her, to make her think you believe her to be an idiot, that you have all the answers and you're just not going to share.

Today, the topic was modern art and whether or not it should be funded or assisted by the government. As with many conservative type governments, ours is working toward eliminating funding for art programs across the board, citing it as something that 'ordinary' Canadians don't feel is necessary. I completely disagree with him, but that's not what A. and I took issue with. It started by me saying that funding is absolutely necessary for these programs, because art is a vital part of culture, it is an expression of a nation's triumphs and struggles, and when all else fails, a lot of it is pretty. I personally have a great appreciation for art, despite not being completely educated about it. I know what I like, and I know that art stimulates the mind and the soul. What I did kind of agree with was that perhaps funding needed to be directed to art programs or projects which might have some economic return on the investment, and A. went a little nuts.

'What do you mean?! Art cannot be alotted a value!' she shrieked.

'Oh really?', I laughed. 'Ever been to an auction at Christie's? Do they give away Renoirs or do they accept loaves and fishes in exchange?'

Somehow, we got into the dangerous territory of 'what art has value and what doesn't'. It's a tough area, given that I know A. likes to paint in her basement, and what she can best manage are splashes of colour on a canvas. It makes her feel good, which is the main thing, and though I probably wouldn't buy one myself, I applaud her effort and support her in her quest to be the next Pollock. She says the paintings are for herself, that it's not meant to 'impress' anyone, but I told her that while she may feel that way, artists who request grants actually are working to impress someone. It is about the money value.

'So, you wouldn't give funding to modern artists?' she snapped.

'If I was in a position to make such a decision?' I asked, taking in a breath.

'Yes. Are you saying that what they do isn't art?'

'Well, I think that some modern art, or abstract art, might be more about personal expression than actual talent.'

'What makes you think you can make that judgment?'

'Well, if I'm in the position to hand out money for what I think is important, then I guess I am the one who makes the judgment, no?'

She was not impressed.

I tried to explain that rubbing feces on a canvas, which some artists around here have been known to do, might be a statement of some kind, but it doesn't take skill or precision. It takes feces, and at the end of the day, if it sold, you're basically buying crap on a canvas. She did not see my point.

'Look, I do appreciate some abstract art, maybe some iconic art, though admittedly I don't get the whole 'Warhol' phenomenon (sacrilege in the eyes of A., who gasped when I said this). What I'm saying is that I think some people who don't have an artistic bent, who want to call themselves an artist and don't have the chops to do it in an obvious way, use that form of art to achieve that goal. Like a 'singer' who sits on a street corner croaking out 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' can call them self a singer, because that's what they want to be. Doesn't mean they can sing well, or that anyone values what they're putting out there. You see?'

She did not.

I took it a little further.

'I think that maybe there are instances of intellectual laziness in modern art, that's all. Minimal effort, and a whole lot of manipulation to encourage people to see something that isn't really there. I'm not saying all, but I am saying that I have seen some fairly horrible stuff passing off as art that looks like something which happened by accident. Like Farah Fawcett rolling around naked while covered in paint. Was it art, or was it a desperate woman trying to reinvent herself?'

The conversation ended shortly after.

The thing is, talking about art is like discussing politics or religion. It's a point of view, an interpretation based on wholly different values and ideas. Modern art, to me, is all about the reaction, and there is something artful about that, even if the art itself is a bungle. Would I hang a Pollock on my wall? Well, aside from the fact that people tell me it's worth a lot of money and that turning my nose at it is the equivalent to turning my back on God, I would probably hang it because I actually do like some of his work. Would I hang a Warhol? You know, maybe, but again, it would the kind of thing where I'd make sure to tell everyone it was the real deal so I could justify having it on my wall. I think that, sometimes, when you're told you have to like something because it has a monetary value assigned to it, you tend to convince yourself that it's worth it even if your initial thought is that a two-year-old could do it.

Me, I'm more into the stuff that has obvious or traditional beauty. Give me Sargent, Vermeer, Pissaro, Degas etc. I don't consider myself a snob about it, because it isn't so. Assigning value to something which possesses no discernible merit and telling others that they know nothing about art because they can't see the aforementioned value is elitist and a little stupid.

If you like it, cool, and if I don't, don't worry about it. I'm not that concerned about what you think of my taste, and neither of us are going to bring the art world down with our opinions. At the end of the day, I still think artistic expression is essential to the well-being of any culture, that if it's taken away, it really leaves us with nothing. If I handled the nation's purse strings, I would ensure that the arts were taken care of, that's certain. I just might be a little selective about the grants, that's all.

A will get over it eventually. She'll simply go paint it out.