 |
| The Krasnals "Scream / awh... too much beauty! / Tribute to Edvard Munch / from the Beauty in Art series". 2012. Oil on canvas. 80 x 60 cm |
One of the definitions of art delivered by main Polish art authority Anda Rottenberg is:
If the artist does the art and shows it in a museum or gallery, it means that he treats it as art. And if the owners or directors of the gallery accept it , that means they make such an assumption. The director assume that the art is what he likes. This is a form of social contract. Like any other. Moreover, today, art does not use the category of beauty, because we have beauty in nature.
Of course, this definition of art is strange to us, especially when our "taste" differs from the leading Polish curators. Isn't it really art, what the current art-establishment doesn't like? If the artists have to worry about such definitions of art, the art history would be poorer by many names.
For example, Andy Warhol… I'm speaking the message to the masses. My paintings are liked by ordinary people. Intelligent people appreciated school of abstract expressionism only after years, so I suppose it's hard for intellectuals recognize an art in what I'm doing. He would also have a deep regard for what Anda Rottenberg thinks about beauty in art: I paint just things I always thought were beautiful, things you use every day and never think about. I paint what I like.
The question is: what in the final result is more important for recipient? When does he gain more - if he watches the art liked by an expert or an artist?
Posts
