"Why can't you say it's easy?" asks the guy behind the counter in the Oxfam shop in discussion with a woman who'd just bought an artist's monograph which he'd flicked through, casually appraising certain works, appreciating the amount of skill involved, gradually luring her into a debate about 'easy' art versus 'skill', which she reluctantly engaged him in, whilst I flicked through the albums as he continued complaining that no-one's allowed to say "That's easy" about a piece of art, meaning, for instance, Abstract Minimalism, although he didn't use the term, he described a simple coloured line against another colour, by which time I couldn't help but interject, saying most people who deride minimalist abstraction are philistines, which really got him going, thinking that's what I was calling him, which I was, in a roundabout way....
...I know this guy and have argued art with him before, so on we went, him bringing up Picasso's simple line drawings, the woman and I countering by suggesting that such things aren't as 'easy' to draw as some think, me saying he put years of experience into them. Then he drew a face on a piece of paper, shoved it forward and we both examined it -
"That was easy!" he declared "But is it art?"
"If you say it is," I replied.
"I'm an artist," he'd said earlier, to which I replied "Good luck to you."
He later declared himself a poet too, but suggested that people reading his work might think it "a load of nonsense". I couldn't argue with that, teeth clamped on my tongue to prevent offence with my general attitude toward amateur poets.
"But words on the whole tend to have specific meaning, whereas abstract art can be open to interpretation," I said.
He said nothing. Previously he'd informed me (the woman had given up and fled) that he wrote about the existence of a 'higher being' in his poems. My teeth sank into my tongue again. If I'd unleashed my thoughts on that idea he may have banned me from the shop.
So it goes on, the same old arguments, still, in 2017! When I told him that the wanton display of ignorance masquerading as criticism isn't valid he got rather angry. Personal taste that evolves over time having studied a lot of art is another matter, but I didn't get that idea into the discussion. I couldn't get him past ancient debates regarding notions of 'skill'. I should have asked him what was wrong with 'easy' too, but didn't. He's stuck somewhere back in time when it was thought that skill was essential to making art, as in being able to draw/paint/build well. Even the woman fell into that trap with the classic counter: "Picasso was actually a really fine draughtsman", words to that effect, thus adhering to another old line which says you must 'learn the rules before you can break them'. Or, it's fine to create abstract works as long as you can really paint! What? Landscapes? Portraits?
At one point he told me a friend wanted a piece of his printed and would pay for it. I asked where he was getting it done...
"Snappy Snaps."
The hint of a smile played across his lips. He was a little embarrassed. Recognising that, I said there was nothing wrong with that. I should have reassured him that in rejecting the Fine Art print for high street services he was at the cutting edge, being anti-bourgeois materialistic Fine Art snobbery. I don't think he'd have understood my point, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment