Upon finishing the article, there were several topics still running through my mind.
Firstly, the idea of art galleries being exclusionary in more ways than one.
The way they exclude so much vital art, the way they are run largely by whites even today, and how they attract only a more luxurious clientele.
It does make me sad to think of that, as it is a museum's founding principle to display historical data accurately and completely. Art museums, as described in this article, are failing miserably at that, pretending that only certain kinds of art has been made and in certain places through-out history.
Understandably, these museums are catering to what is popular, familiar, and easy to digest. But if all history books were to be changed to only these categories of facts, history itself would be much more different. There would be no large wars, genocides, and famines.
It is important to display all art in a public forum not just because it seems more fair to artists to get there work out there and for the public to be able to decide its value rather than some stuffed shirt behind a desk, but because the art world (like all other aspects of life) needs to be gauged with opposites.
There is no hot without an idea of cold, large without small, love without hate or, my point, Good without Bad.
Without all art forms having a fair forum of which to be judged and presented on, we're getting a pre-selected distortion of the art world, being told what is good and accepting that the public's opinion has no credibility or value in a art setting.
Art is for the people, it is creativity and sharing on a basic level, regardless of whether it is comfortable or beautiful. It is a shame to know that the most uncreative of people are in charge of so much of how the art world is percieved.
I agree with the author, why not change that today.
-Thomas
No comments:
Post a Comment