A few days ago a friend sent me an image he liked that was posted on Facebook, a painting. I liked it too. But as I scrolled down and read the comments that accompanied other that and other images I was reminded why I left Facebook a few years ago. Opinions. Opinion, opinions, opinions. Too many opinions. Mostly unsupported opinions, of course, but even the well-supported opinions are tiresome. I ask you, is there anything less contemplative than judgmental statements? I find them exhausting, frankly. Which isn't to say that people are not "entitled" to their opinions -- they are, of course they are -- but to what end? Opinions about artwork, whatever their value to art critics and other individuals who enjoy struggling with discernment, whether "good" or "bad" for whatever reason, serve no contemplative purpose. They don't enlighten; they only distract -- and usually discourage, demean and depress. Or so I experience. I know, I know, there is art that thrives on controversy, art that is made for art-critical review, insights of dissection to ponder and reflect upon, and who am I to say there is not value in such things? I imagine there is. To someone. But not to me. Contemplative Art lives without judgment in a gift economy, where appreciation is not dependent on the weighty dualism that passes for intellect, where one value is forever pitted against another. Nothing disrupts contemplative appreciation quicker than the critical approach.
Well, you may ask, what is the alternative? Do we need to dismiss all matter of discernment? If we are not to approach art with a critical eye, forming opinions about what we like and what we don't like, how are we to look at art? Must we abandon all distinction between one thing and another? No. The contemplative eye is not undiscerning. But the approach is different, as the end is not to judge but to value. If one is presented with a gift one does not say, "I like this, but I don't like that." One simply says thank you, and accepts the gift on the face of it. Appreciation is rooted in whatever can be found of value, without complaint. And art, like life, is a gift. As every tree you see is a gift, a visual blessing whatever its shape, so is a work of art. I taught college level art for 26 years, and never once found a drawing or painting in which I found no value. Does that mean that all art is "good?" Did I give all As, as I've heard some art teachers might? Of course not. Some art is more successful than other art. ...But all art has value on its own terms.
Last night I was reading in an old (1998) book on art called Portraits: Talking with Artists at The Met, The Modern, The Louvre, and Elsewhere, by Michael Kimmelman. In it, artists, one by one, are interviewed by Kimmelman about the art they see together as they walk through galleries. Last night I read the chapter on Brice Marden, and it was a joy to follow along as the two conversed. Marden was full of insights into different pieces, discerning, yet appreciative. He criticized nothing, but enthused often about the varying aspects he discovered in a great variety of art. It was a very different experience for me, taking that all in, from scrolling through Facebook.
Well, you may ask, what is the alternative? Do we need to dismiss all matter of discernment? If we are not to approach art with a critical eye, forming opinions about what we like and what we don't like, how are we to look at art? Must we abandon all distinction between one thing and another? No. The contemplative eye is not undiscerning. But the approach is different, as the end is not to judge but to value. If one is presented with a gift one does not say, "I like this, but I don't like that." One simply says thank you, and accepts the gift on the face of it. Appreciation is rooted in whatever can be found of value, without complaint. And art, like life, is a gift. As every tree you see is a gift, a visual blessing whatever its shape, so is a work of art. I taught college level art for 26 years, and never once found a drawing or painting in which I found no value. Does that mean that all art is "good?" Did I give all As, as I've heard some art teachers might? Of course not. Some art is more successful than other art. ...But all art has value on its own terms.
Last night I was reading in an old (1998) book on art called Portraits: Talking with Artists at The Met, The Modern, The Louvre, and Elsewhere, by Michael Kimmelman. In it, artists, one by one, are interviewed by Kimmelman about the art they see together as they walk through galleries. Last night I read the chapter on Brice Marden, and it was a joy to follow along as the two conversed. Marden was full of insights into different pieces, discerning, yet appreciative. He criticized nothing, but enthused often about the varying aspects he discovered in a great variety of art. It was a very different experience for me, taking that all in, from scrolling through Facebook.
RSS Feed
