Blue Beach Art Criticism 2/7/13

The issue of what constitutes Art and what does not is an exclusively modern problem. In the time of Michealangelo or Leonardo DaVinci I don't believe there was any doubt or debate as to what qualified or did not qualify as a work of Art. Unlike those times, our modern culture has seen a lapse of craftsmanship and apprenticeship. There is no accepted methodology for artistic creation, nor is there a "school of thought" that predominates the Art world. A noticeable side effect of this alteration of culture and times, is that the line between what constitutes a work of art has been blurred and in certain circumstances, illiminated all together. The instance involving the sculpture "Giant Hamburger" of Claes Oldenburg is a primary example of this blurring. Oldenburg falls on the side of "classically" trained artist in our modern culture, having gone to Yale University and The School of the Arts Institute of Chicago, and his work therefore is deemed as "authentic" art, Wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Oldenburg . The larger question for me is whether any of our modern artistic trainers or institutions teach what would have been considered "Art" at the height of the Reniessance or other historical time frames. Are modern "artists" acquiring the abilities and skills that enable them to effectively convey an aesthetic to their works and to viewers, that could rival what was being passed down during the greatest times in art history, or are those skills obsolete?

Theoretically Modern Art contains the elements in aesthetic terms from the artists and presumably viewers perspective that qualify it as valid work. Have those standards been upheld over time though? Are the standards for what constitute a "true" work of Art as stringent now, for both the creator and viewer, as they were in say, the 16th Century? If one reads the writings of Vasari, it takes very little time to see to what stringent, lofty expectations artists of the time (and past) were held to. (the-art-world.com, http://www.the-art-world.com/articles/vasari.htm). According to Vasari, an artist must fulfill certain minimum expectations when it came to "...the application of rule, order, proportion, disegno and maniera..." Ibid. In the particular instance of "Pop" Art, there have always been those who have contended that specific style did not constitute genuine art but merely a "rip off" of common items. This is where the big question of artistic intent and viewer attendance comes into play. With the giant hamburger, the Art world, the artist and the gallery deemed the peice as "valid" or meetingt the necessary prerequisites to make it a true work of Art, whether they meet classical requirements or not is another issue. The students who correspondingly made the bottle of ketchup and placed it alongside the work are subject to the same requirements and standards that any Art falls under. Were the students trained? Was the work created with artistic or aesthetic intent? When it was viewed did the ketchup bottle garner the viewers attention? Did it impact them emotionally or cerebrally? One aspect of Art that has not really been discussed in "Basic Issues in Aesthetics" is what impact, if any, does longevity play in determining the validity or lack thereof of a peice of Artwork? Christo's works have, in quite a few instances, been

installations, while works like "David" are intended to be permanent results. Longevity, in my estimation, is subject to some of the same scrutiny we have given to "taste", and the artists creative intent so far in our discussions. Is longevity a concrete aspect of Art or is it more of an intangiable, internal aspect of works? For me, how long a work "sticks" via its impact on the viewer, the Art world, artist or world at large is the major determining factor. Even if the individuals who created the ketchup bottle intended the peice to be a "lark", or if the work is stored away in a basement or enthusiastically displayed as a centerpeice of someones collection somewhere, the impact of their creation is still in existence and therefore the work has validity. Did the bottle have aesthetic value? The answer, under this consideration, must indeed be yes. Whether there was artistic "intent" is questionable. Whether the work has merit or aesthetic value to viewers is also questionable. One qualifier that the bottle clearly meets is the fact that it had an impact and that impact has had longevity. With this in mind, we must conclude that it is indeed a "work of Art".

This incident with the students really happened. What are we to make of it? Should it be regarded as a gesture of disrespect to an eminent artist and a dignified institution, as a show of bad manners? Or should we see it as a satirical expos of the facility and superficiality of the pop art of the time (as pop art sometimes was a comment on serious art of its time)? Was it a harmless joke, leaving things just as they were, with

no aesthetic damage done? Or was something damaged, aesthetically or otherwise, by the prank? Was it simply a blunder? Did the students miss the point of Oldenburgs work and hence make the relation between their cardboard bottle and the Oldenburg mock-up aesthetically uninteresting? More to the point, should we say that the students had created a new artwork of their own, incorporating Oldenburgs work as part? (Battin, M. P., Fisher, J., Moore, R. and Silvers, A. (1989). Puzzles About Art. New York: St. Martins Press. pp. 2-3).