Secrets of the City

I mentioned this to Courtney already: I wanted to thank you, Max, and Courtney for offering your perspective. You are both artier souls than I. You got me to think about the topic beyond the obvious “that guy’s an idiot” conclusion.

Thank you, Erica.

That guy is oblivious to the fact he perfectly fits the stereotype of a guy @ St. Cloud State.

Max, that response was incredibly articulate while not being at all mean-spirited …. you’re a better man than I.

Art should engage and challenge.

[From Ben's review:] I definitely saw some interesting stuff, a giant CNN gold chain, a life size model of a car totaled, T.V.’s from the 1980’s playing the most ridiculous things, a stuffed dog …

Ben was definitely engaged by some things he saw but it doesn’t appear that he really challenged himself beyond simple recognition. My question to Ben would be: “Did you ever stop to think why there was a giant CNN gold chain on display at the Walker? (Which he mentions twice in his review>) Or a stuffed dog?”

When I’m engaged by something I don’t understand, I try to understand the basis of my befuddlement. I might wind up not liking something but in arriving at that conclusion, I learn something more about myself.

I didn’t read the kids OpEd simply because the picture tells me everything I need to know.

Art should engage and challenge, but it should also connect with people. It’s true that education makes a difference, but many educated people don’t care for modern art; Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin, to name two off the top of my head. Their critique is that it frequently does not evoke any emotion at all, and often seems more of a stunt or joke than an asthetic effort. I myself think that the artist’s explanation of a piece is often more interesting than the art work itself. And, by the way, I do enjoy opera – even if it’s not in English!

I actually kind of love his review. It’s a piece of work in itself. In fact I think someone should create a performance art piece based on the text.

There are different levels to experiencing art. I don’t think you always have to have the context, although that can be helpful to understanding the work. But I think there is something to be said for the pure experience of viewing the art without context as well.

Which is not to say that he is viewing the work entirely without context. His context is based on a permeating view in most of American society that contemporary art is crap. So that’s the oeuvre that he’s viewing it.

Still, he is very descriptive about his own feelings as he goes through the galleries. He talks about his own feelings, how it effects him- he puts himself in a place of vulnerability. And the last paragraph is very honest and true.

Art should engage and challenge, but it should also connect with people.

But arts appreciation is so subjective. One person’s Monet is another person’s Picasso is another person’s Norman Rockwell is another person’s Velvet Elvis.

Velvet Elvis will have an appeal to people for whom Picasso’s art is … just weird. The Picasso fans will usually stifle giggles over Velvet Elvis art. So, art doesn’t really have to connect with everyone. Or anyone.

Bear in mind, too, that the Walker displays, by intention, a completely different body of art work than that of, say, the Institute of Arts. Knowing what the boundaries are, within a particular gallery, can help one better understand the underlying intents and purposes of the art there that is on display.

“Art should engage and challenge, but it should also connect with people.”

There’s a difference between engaging and challenging, and shocking. There’s way too much of the latter.

For me, it doesn’t need to be any of those things if it’s beautiful. Elegant, simple. Rendered with style.

And I don’t need to look at soul in torment’s attempts at therapy.

And I don’t need to look at soul in torment’s attempts at therapy.

Different strokes for different folks. Understanding Van Gogh’s torment only adds to the appreciation of his art IMHO.

Btw, Americans are the only people, apparently, who pronounce Van Gogh as “van goh.” Everyone else says “van goff.”

“Understanding Van Gogh’s torment only adds to the appreciation of his art IMHO.”

Wouldn’t need to know a thing about him to appreciate the art. Been to the Van Gogh museum several times. He was very meticulous. And he could draw well.

If I get an Idea a painter can’t draw, I have a hard time taking much interest.

He didn’t say you can’t appreciate it. He said it ADDS to the appreciation of it.

I think it sort of comes down to this moment in the galleries:

“What the hell is this crap? They call this art? This is the freaking Walker Art CenterThey’re stupid! The artist is stupid!”

I’ve totally been there. If I don’t get it, somebody’s stupid — and I’m always pretty sure it’s not me.

Still, would it kill them to have a little description telling me why it deserves to be on the wall at the Walker Art Center?

For me, it doesn’t need to be any of those things if it’s beautiful. Elegant, simple. Rendered with style.

If it’s eliciting that kind of a response in you, it’s engaging and connecting with you.

ARGH, unclosed tag. Try again:

I think it sort of comes down to this moment in the galleries:

“What the hell is this crap? They call this art? This is the freaking Walker Art Center, it must be art, so am I stupid if I don’t get it? No… Hang on. I’m not stupid. They’re stupid! The artist is stupid!”

I’ve totally been there. If I don’t get it, somebody’s stupid — and I’m always pretty sure it’s not me.

Still, would it kill them to have a little description telling me why it deserves to be on the wall at the Walker Art Center?

“Did you ever stop to think why there was a giant CNN gold chain on display at the Walker? (Which he mentions twice in his review>) Or a stuffed dog?”

But we all know why it’s there: some artist has put it there. Their reason was to “create art,” and they chose a genre that is easy to perform in and nearly impossible to fail by objective criteria.

The response to this college student’s opinion piece intrigues me. When I first started writing art criticism nearly 12 years ago, a few people wrote questioning my credentials to do so. “What makes him an art critic?” This despite that I had two master’s degrees, a long exhibition record as an artist, and my pieces were vetted by an experienced arts editor.

Yet, this college student, who seems to have no art background, didn’t likely intend the opinion piece to be art criticism, and probably got scant editorial guidance gets raked over the coals for not meeting the standards of the art critic.

It’s always something…

I just wish they’d lose that “Bits and Pieces” thing off the side of the building.

If I had my chance, I’d blow it off with a cannon, like the Turks blew off the nose of the Sphinx.

Then I’d laugh.

Do it, Rat! Do it do it do it!

this college student, who seems to have no art background, didn’t likely intend the opinion piece to be art criticism, and probably got scant editorial guidance gets raked over the coals for not meeting the standards of the art critic.

I don’t think people are criticizing Ben for not meeting whatever standards there are for being an art critic (whatever those are). What people are reacting to, in his writing, is akin to what hg wrote above: “What the hell is this crap? They call this art?”

Ben’s limited understanding of art, his implied ignorance of the artistic process, and his obvious lack of empathy for the whole “art” thing turns his Walker “review” into more of a snapshot of someone who feels out of place or left behind.

The Walker takes all the fun out of art, and in their spare time takes all the fun out of miniature golf.

Ben’s limited understanding of art, his implied ignorance of the artistic process, and his obvious lack of empathy for the whole “art” thing turns his Walker “review” into more of a snapshot of someone who feels out of place or left behind.

That actually seems like a valid personal reaction to the show. I’m unsure exactly why people are taking him to task for stating this.

I wrote to Max as he was writing his 17th or 18th Twitter post slamming Ben’s piece that it all seemed a bit fish-barrelish to me.

Well, that was my review of Ben’s review. I suppose if I were Ben, I would’ve approached the subject in a different manner. Rather than writing nothing about the stuffed dog — other than he saw it was a stuffed dog — I would’ve expressed my curiosity about what that stuffed dog was all about.

That’s being engaged and being challenged by art. It’s not, after all, a taxidermy show.

wherethehell is St. Cloud, anyhow?

According to Wikipedia: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Wisconsin, and France.

Er, Florida and France.

Dammit, Wisconsin, stop stealing our “St” towns, there are more than enough other Saints for y’all to have picked from without copying from your neighbor.

i work in a large ethnographic museum, mostly of domestic and agricultural culture, 2500BC-1985. In our translocated buildings, we use everyday historical objects to engage with visitors, showing a more personal context to large, global events.

I saw this comment in the visitor book last week:

“all very touchy feely, but where is the history? i have learned absolutely nothing”

seems some people can’t see the wood for the trees. at times i think this happens at school, when a child is praised for being ‘good’ at a subject – for example, remembering all the English monarchs in order, or drawing a ‘really realistic’ bowl of apples.
if someone is taught that ‘real’ history means dates, treaties and the names of generals, then they won’t recognise any different.

the same goes for art. if one is taught, early on, that representational painting is ‘good’ (ie skilled), and that conceptual art is ’stuff arranged’ (or unskilled), then that person will have a hard time recognising any of contemporary art’s value without feeling they are being hoodwinked or, worse, patronised.

It’s a very artist-centric position that assumes it is a shortcoming of museum goers (or even and indictment of the entire culture!) when they aren’t impressed with your exhibit.

Taking pride in not understanding something is what scares me the most.

Perhaps if some of the art could be made from Natural Ice cans, he might change his tune.

It’s a very artist-centric position that assumes it is a shortcoming of museum goers (or even and indictment of the entire culture!) when they aren’t impressed with your exhibit.

But it’s more than just one exhibit; it’s the whole Walker. I don’t think it’s artist-centric to question an impression that’s, more or less, the equivalent of “There was a bunch of stuff on display. What’s up with that?”

That’s not to say everyone needs to “get” any of it. I still don’t “get” why, during my brief tenure at MCAD, a student sealed a Big Mac within a Plexiglass cube and called it “art.” But maybe that was his point: To provoke a discussion about what is, or isn’t, “art.”

In my opinion Art has one very simple but ultimately complex mission:

To elicit an emotional response.

When reading his review, it is abundantly clear to me that it (art/walker) succeeded.

The bar is higher for me.

Noodle, the discussion about what is and what isn’t art is the ultimate artist-centric question to pose. At this point it is also incredibly trite. I’m completely bored by it.

who cares what this little twit from NoWhere, Minnesota thinks about the Walker’s exhibitions? His opinion is unformed, naive and best left in the third-rate university cafeteria from which it originated.

But have any of you actually seen the first exhibit that he spoke of? The one with the cubes and the shelves? I mean, really?

The Walker has some great exhibits. The Walker has had some great exhibits. The one with the shelves and the cubes truly is totally and entirely over-the-top. It’s situated close to the main entrance of the building so many go through there first upon entering. I can understand completely how some first-timers may see that and be immediately put off by everything else there. That exhibit really is ridiculous.

who cares what this little twit from NoWhere, Minnesota thinks about the Walker’s exhibitions? His opinion is unformed, naive and best left in the third-rate university cafeteria from which it originated.

That’s completely unnecessary.

I occasionally have my skepticism over art at the Walker, but at the end of the day I enjoy enough of it that it’s worth it.

But ceci is right: he doesn’t appreciate the art he just created. Masterful.

who cares what this little twit from NoWhere, Minnesota thinks about the Walker’s exhibitions? His opinion is unformed, naive and best left in the third-rate university cafeteria from which it originated.

That’s completely unnecessary.

and incredibly pretentious. Ugh.

Of course his reaction was valid, and “The Quick and the Dead,” which seems to be primarily responsible for raising his ire, is a particularly good show to begin asking questions about the whys, whats and hows of contemporary art.

The problem here was that he didn’t even try. There was zero effort put into this piece, conceptually or technically — he didn’t even bother to learn the name of the exhibition. I have no respect for that whatsoever. If you’re going to have a piece published, whether it’s “art criticism” or not, your responsibility is, at the bare minimum, to get your facts straight and seem like you’ve put some thought into it.

If what you get from your trip to the Walker is a sense of the emperor not having clothes, there are plenty of more credible, intelligent ways to express that.

I also had the thought — at my wise old age of 31 — that his response was immature, and that it was a purely emotional one without much analytical tempering. That’s exactly what I would have written when I was in college. Except I wouldn’t have spouted off to anyone and everyone because I like to think that I would have recognized that it would have made me look a little ignorant. Maybe that’s just the humble Midwesterner in me (although it doesn’t seem to have affected him). Or maybe it’s the engineer in me.

Odd to have to mention this but the Walker does have interactive explanations available via Mobile Phone for most exhibits or listening devices you can check out to hear the story behind the art.

I think he would be more of a Smirnoff Ice guy not Natural Light.

BTW the new Modern wing at the Chicago Art Institute is pretty amazing and is free on Thursday and Friday nights.

It seems my view of his piece differs from many. Although, I agree that it wasn’t articulated well and he may not have fully examined why he reacted the way he did, but I didn’t mind his piece. I think he said what a lot of people think about modern art.

Won’t most artists say that evoking an emotional response, both positve and negative is a good thing?

Having grown up with artists and an art history mum, I sometimes just want to experience the art exhibit without anyone telling me what it’s suppose to be or what I should see or think about the piece.

I think he would be more of a Smirnoff Ice guy not Natural Light.

Smirnoff? LOL

If it’s not beer, it’s Mike’s Hard Lemonade.

…a particularly good show to begin asking questions about the whys, whats and hows of contemporary art. The problem here was that he didn’t even try.

At the risk of flogging a horse here, Andy, I don’t know why we would expect this Op Ed piece to begin asking these questions. The Op Ed pages are filled with half- and misinformed writers who spout off the first thing they think of about an issue, so I wonder why should we have higher expectations when people write about art. Most of us just shrug off these opinions and move on with our day. Why are art people so sensitive that they can’t accept someone might be threatened and put off by art, that they aren’t really interested in the hermetic and obscure issues that surround contemporary art, and that they are not able to articulate these feelings in a way that is acceptable to the art world?

I agree this piece was ill-informed about art and written mostly from the gut, but why not just let the guy have his say? His confused reaction is probably more in keeping with the majority of people’s reaction to shows like this, and I think this is a valid thing. It’s always baffled me that artists want it both ways: They want to make obscure and obfuscating work that avoids easy and everyday interpretation (indeed that shrouds itself in inaccessible theoretical justifications), and they want the public to love and embrace them.

I think a more interesting set of questions is, assuming this fellow choose to go to the Walker because he was trying, as he suggested, to impress his date (I suppose because he wanted the edgy cred that Walker shows tend to impart), how and why did he realize this edginess wasn’t what he wanted? And isn’t this something the Walker should be concerned about? If the Walker’s selling an edgy product geared to the young, then how should it deal with a backlash by the young consumers it wants to attract?

No, I disagree, dougie is right with the Smirnoff Ice. I don’t know a lot of gay guys his age drinking beer aside from the occassional Miller Lite.

I think he said what a lot of people think about modern art.

Won’t most artists say that evoking an emotional response, both positve and negative is a good thing?

Having grown up with artists and an art history mum, I sometimes just want to experience the art exhibit without anyone telling me what it’s suppose to be or what I should see or think about the piece.

Cat, I absolutely agree with you on this, and is what I’ve been trying to say (in many more words.) Thanks for putting it so well.

And the one thing that I think everyone is missing and was mentioned in a private email is that the guy WAS TRYING TO BE FUNNY!

He probably didn’t like. It probably wasn’t his thing. So he decided to write something funny about it. Because he is a terrible writer, it didn’t come off like that, but I think it was his intent.

You all just need to lighten up a bit.

And just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean your opinion isn’t valid. I don’t understand NASCAR, but I think it sucks from the little I’ve seen. I don’t need to educate myself on it to have that opinion.

No, I disagree, dougie is right with the Smirnoff Ice. I don’t know a lot of gay guys his age drinking beer aside from the occassional Miller Lite.

I’ve got to disagree with you all y’all. I think it’s clear that guy loves throwback, retro drinks. He’s most likely located the last stockpile of Zima and considers himself quite the connoisseur of the granddaddy of fruity malt beverages.

Also, he’s probably one of the top food/beverage writers the world has ever seen, specializing in highly articulate, beautifully written reviews of various malt beverages. His critique of Smirnoff Raw Tea haunted readers.

At least, that’s the storyline about him that’s playing out in my head.

I brought my current partner to the Walker on our second date about 6 years ago to go see the Takashi Miike movie Ichi the Killer. During the scene where they hang the guy from meat hooks from the ceiling and pour hot shrimp oil on his back my partner passed out. I’m amazed there was a 3rd date.

We both still enjoy Modern Art, he does not enjoy Takashi Miike movies.

Having grown up with artists and an art history mum, I sometimes just want to experience the art exhibit without anyone telling me what it’s suppose to be or what I should see or think about the piece.

That’s probably a good way to experience the exhibit, but once you decide to write about it it for public consumption, I think at that point you need to start collecting the basics that Andy mentioned.

I’m guessing he’s not a Cy Twombly fan.

This giacometti sculpture that is at the Walker is sublime.  How did he miss this?

At the risk of flogging a horse here, Andy, I don’t know why we would expect this Op Ed piece to begin asking these questions.

OK, well, let’s say I went to go review a car show, cars being an area I have no interest in or understanding of personally. And then I turned in my piece to the Op-ed page that said “Cars sure are stupid! They’re so loud! What’s a caruberetor! I don’t know, it sounds weird! What are exhausts all about anyway! It’s like I’m the one that’s exhausated! All these cars were made by some guy named Hondo! What’s a Hondo!”

I think we can all agree that would be a poor piece.

It’s not that the writer didn’t like the art — that’s fine. It’s would have been a poor piece if he had said “This stuff was crazy! The car tire on the wall was cool! My date thought the thing with all the records in it was neat!” I really don’t think it’s unreasonable or hypocritical to think that, no matter what the subject is, a writer has a responsibility to do some sort of actual work if he or she is having that piece published somewhere.

@mnblrmkr: I don’t agree. It was a gut reaction. We can call him all sorts of names and say how ignorant he is, etc. etc., but I like his gut reaction.

I tend to cut people a lot of slack when it comes to music and art. First reactions are good because it’s what the person feels without any input to what it’s suppose to be.

Even if he examined his reaction and came up with the same conclusion, my guess is that people would still criticize him for not seeing what they see.

My bro’s off-the-cuff reaction to John Cage’s 4′33″: “How can I listen to this piece when there’s so much racket going on?”

Based on that sample, I think you’d be a great automotive show critic, Andy.

My first reaction to his piece was: this guy’s in college? Seriously? This is fine for a personal rant on a blog, or for a “deep” conversation with friends at two in the morning, but isn’t he embarrassed that his name (for all future employers, for example) will always come up in future google searches, and that he might as well have a big neon sight over his head that says “My intellectual growth was stunted somewhere along the line.” (of course some employers have no problem with that, so maybe that’s not an issue) Now to give him credit, maybe the guy isn’t as dumb as he comes across. It’s not his fault that he was never exposed to art at an earlier age – this is why the schools all need to take field trips to places like the Walker. At least he is thinking about his art experience, even if he didn’t “get” it. I often don’t understand modern art, either. What I don’t understand, though, is how someone has such a hard time understanding that while he doesn’t understand or appreciate the art, others do. You’d think that would make him think “gee, my mom should have brought me here when I was younger so that I grew up a little less sheltered,” rather than “thank god my mom protected me from this crap!” I respect his opinion to think it’s pointless, or not art, or whatever else he wants to think, and do feel that his piece is informative for the insights it gives into not the art itself, but the experience of a pretty average (maybe not Walker average, but off-the-street average) museum goer.

I felt a little bad about posting my comment as soon as I posted it; it’s not fair to call the writer all sorts of names, although of course if you’re publishing your stuff in the paper than you expect (and want) to get a strong reaction.

I agree with andyst – it’s not necessarily his view of the art that’s the problem, it’s that he didn’t even try. I think his visit showed intellectual laziness.

I think one major issue I have is that some people are conflating journalistic art criticism with having a valid opinion.

Good art critics are able use art history, context, other sources and articulate, well thought out reasoning to express their opinions but, honestly, at the end of the day, they’re just expressing their opinion.

Andy, to use your own example against you, people make judgments all the time about cars that are not based on a high understanding of what makes them work.

Joe Mechanic’s review of the 2007 Burt Reynolds edition of the Pontiac Trans Am vs., say, the 2007 Honda Accord would likely be very different from Joe T. Raceway’s review of the same two cars. Which point of view is more valid? This depends, doesn’t it?

The mechanic probably has some validity in choosing the better car, because the mechanic knows empirically how each car works. Yet, the average Joe should be allowed to believe that one car (obviously the 2007 Burt Reynolds edition Pontiac Trans Am) is much cooler than the other, despite that this is based on nothing other than gut.

In case I’ve gone too far afield here, I’m making the analogy that the artiscenti (critics, artists, curators) who have the inside info on art are akin to auto mechanics, and this Ben Walker-hater guy reacting to a surface impression of art is the Trans Am lover. Makes sense? No? Well, don’t blame me. Andy started it.

The writing of that OpEd piece read more like something on a blog. At least it landed in the Opinion section because it is opinionated writing. Art, in all forms, is a subjective medium but after reading that column I’d be interested in his take of the works at the Franconia Sculpture Garden.

I think a closer parallel would be that that the curators, et al, are classic car collectors, and the editorial author is an unfrozen caveman who has never seen a car before and thinks it may be a devil wolf.

I think the appropriate analogy is a person who has a drivers license and owns a car but only has a passing interest in automobiles, goes to a car show anyway, and discovers a bathtub on wheels, a giant rubber manatee on roller skates, and a bunch of smashed Hot Wheels suspended from the ceiling. If he read the Mechanics Statement, he’d learn that they wanted, for whatever reason, to challenge his concept of “Car.” He leaves shaking his head, thinking, “I don’t know much about cars, but I do know I’m not driving anything in there.”

Kurtis, agreed. Then he writes what he thinks is a funny commentary about it. Then some uppity car/motorcycle/bicycle critics see it and get their panties in a bunch.

Obviously our discussion needs to be about what happens when unfunny people try to be funny. Because this is like the Towering Inferno of unfunny.

I thought Kurtis was funny.

Come now, Max. Such rhetoric.

The writing isn’t that bad. Yes, he makes a few mistakes and tosses off a few canned arguments. But I found what he wrote to be clear and descriptive, if heavily opinionated, and it’s been evocative enough to engender much discussion.

Most of all, he makes several very valid points: Walker art does tend to relish obscurity and nose-thumbing; the architectural spaces at the Walker are disorienting; and these block-buster exhibitions escape easy intellectual consumption. And I don’t think anyone can argue with the question he poses at the end: “Isn’t art supposed to resonate deep inside of us even if we don’t understand it?”

@Kurtis: Hilarious! Thanks for that!

If this is the Towering Inferno of unfunny, I want to know who all the parts are. I mean, I know Max is Dabney Coleman and that I’m Steve McQueen, but what about OJ? What about Fred Astaire? What about Bobby Brady?

I really don’t understand you, arthappy. It was either meant to be funny, which it failed at, or it was meant to be a critique, and, as it was profoundly uninformed, it failed at that.

Of course, the third option is that it was a young man’s own tale of how art frightens him, but, since he blamed the art rather than examining himself, he didn’t do a bang up job of that either.

That any editor, even of a college paper, let this through is astounding. This is the column equivalent of one of those comments that pops up underneath a Strib article.

Walker art does tend to relish obscurity and nose-thumbing; the architectural spaces at the Walker are disorienting; and these block-buster exhibitions escape easy intellectual consumption.

Do we need more easily consumed pablum in the world?  My opinion would be a resounding NO!

I also don’t think every opinion is a valid opinion.  Stop filling up the world with your mis-informed ignorant prattlings. 

He should stick to op-eds about hair care products and shoes.

And seriously, how can this fact be ignored — that there is such a thing as a movie with OJ Simpson and Fred Astaire. In the SAME FREAKING MOVIE. And then you add Bobby Brady and Dabney Coleman and Steve freaking McQueen. How I miss star-studded, poorly-written disaster epics. Where have you gone, Irwin Allen? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Obviously our discussion needs to be about what happens when unfunny people try to be funny. Because this is like the Towering Inferno of unfunny.

Well, first wouldn’t everyone on here need to be educated about what funny is?
And/or vetted.

They would have to have a sense of humor, I would think.

Funny starts with a chimp on roller skates playing an accordian and ends just before Bob Saget.

Bob Saget has one more Academy Award than any of us do. But, then, so does Diablo Cody.

It’s much funnier if the chimp reaches Bob Saget and starts thrashing him with the accordian.

Bob Saget does not have a real academy award. He has a student academy award, which is not the same thing. It is like winning the Junior Olympics.

They would have to have a sense of humor, I would think.

I dunno, some people have better sense of humor than others.

I really don’t understand you, arthappy. It was either meant to be funny, which it failed at, or it was meant to be a critique, and, as it was profoundly uninformed, it failed at that.

Of course, the third option is that it was a young man’s own tale of how art frightens him, but, since he blamed the art rather than examining himself, he didn’t do a bang up job of that either.

Well, the fourth option is that this is an Op-Ed piece, the goal of which is to reveal an opposing opinion that exists in the community and is not affiliated with the paper’s editorial staff.

Speaking of The Walker. I hate their Web site. There, I’ve said it.

The mum uses Marcel Duchamps fountain as an example of art that wasn’t considered art at the time. And most critics and curators did not see it as art.

Does this make me a heathen?

Well, he has one more Student Academy Award than we do, and one more than Diablo Cody does. And the film he won if for,Through Adam’s Eyes, is actually quite lovely, I hear.

So you’re not if the opinion that op eds should be informed, arthappy?

So you’re not if the opinion that op eds should be informed, arthappy?

No.

You’d have to go back and read my previous comments to know my opinion on that.

Your previous comments also seems to say that op eds are misinformed, and that’s just the way they are, and why should we complain. I must be missing the part where you argue that they should, instead, take the time to actually learn about their subject. It’s a long thread, and I apologize for that.

I don’t get the Walker either, most of the time. But I think that’s the point. My kids do sure seem to love it, though.

Also, I can’t wait for this kid’s review of the Chambers Hotel. I will personally pay for his accomodations if he’ll get it published.

@g_rote

The kids mainly love it because the Walker actively encourages them to stay on the lawn instead of shooing them off it angrily.

There are a lot of half-assed op-eds out there, many of them directed at local institutions. I just can’t figure out why this one produced SO MUCH VITRIOL from Max Sparber. I mean, is he on the Walker payroll? Is he the love child of Kthy Halbreich and Ralph Burnet? Did this kid from St. Cloud steal Sailor Martin? Inquiring minds want to know.

Your previous comments also seems to say that op eds are misinformed, and that’s just the way they are, and why should we complain. I must be missing the part where you argue that they should, instead, take the time to actually learn about their subject. It’s a long thread, and I apologize for that.

I thought what arthappy was suggesting was that there were aspects of the kid’s piece that were of value and that there were some positive attributes of his writing. I didn’t think that he was making an argument about how art criticism, as a rule, should work and how people should educate themselves. I think he was talking about merits of the op-ed in and of itself and not the process behind the op-ed.

I also think that he was suggesting that, yes, this kid’s writings would not hold up to the standards of someone who is a professional journalist or a staff writer for a publication, instead it was an op-ed. It was people from the SCC community saying what they were thinking and what’s on their mind, sometimes those things aren’t up to staff writer/prof journalist standards but, whatever, a sampling of what people in the community are saying.

That was my interpretation of what arthappy was saying. But I don’t know. He posted, like, 4 times and that’s a ton of information to slog through, so I could very well be off base.

Hey, I wrote him a pointed but otherwise rather polite little note. My discussion on Twitter was more generalized, about whether opinions are more valuable if they are better informed. When Erica took that discussion to her blog, I brought it here, because it’s an interesting discussion.

I don’t have any more antipathy toward this kid than I do toward anybody who thinks an uninformed opinion is just as awesome as a researched one. In general, I feel that argument is made by lazy people who can’t be bothered to even wander over to the Internet and fire up Wikipedia for a moment, but great tragedy and foolishness are built on great ignorance, and I am generally not in favor of people who think that just because they have an opinion, it is worth a damn. I feel that an opinion becomes more valuable the better it can be justified, and you justify opinions with facts.

@Bixby: Wow. I think that’s a pretty good summary of my thinking on this. Thanks! I’d also add as a subtext that it’s a concern of mine that the art world gets overly sensitive whenever anyone presents a negative view (well informed or only halfway informed) of what they do. I think I wrote at one point that most people, when confronted by a half-cocked opinion, just shrug it off and walk away.

@Max: I think your Tweets on the matter led me to believe that you thought only informed art critics should be given leave to comment on art. I think my response, which I hope has been polite and respectful if in disagreement, was a partial reaction to this perception of what you were writing. I apologize if I was mistaken about your point.

I agree this piece was ill-informed about art and written mostly from the gut, but why not just let the guy have his say?

Why not? Because it’s uninformed opinions such as his that can have dire financial consequences when it comes to funding for the arts. More especially when it’s the Sixth District (Bachmannville) he’s writing from.

Surely the paper wasn’t so hard up for decent columns that they had to publish this particular piece? I don’t find his opinion valuable, other than to serve as a reminder that there are uninformed and lazy people out there, including some who are in college (where in theory, anyway, they should be open to learning new things.)

I don’t believe arts reviewing should be left up to critics at all, and think that, instead, a lot of coverage of arts is going to be taken over by amateurs and social media, and actually encourage that.

And I am fine with people saying “It’s not to my taste.” Everyone has a right to their own tastes, even if it’s bad taste.

But when you start making the case that there is some sort of con game going on, or that an arts organization is just nonsense, as this fellow did, I think it behooves you to actually learn a little bit about the subject.

Re Towering Inferno: I get to be Faye Dunaway!

If we are doing remakes, could we also do Airport ‘75? Then we can argue over who gets the Charlton Heston role, involving jumping from one airplane to the other to save the day. Plus he wears some swank 70s clothes.

My beef with the review is the awful (non-existent?) editing. Painfully bad.

The content? Eh, he’s a young goofball who is okay with commenting on art.

I might get annoyed if something other than the St. Cloud Weekly Shopper or whatever published this, but as it is, he can go ahead say what he wants. He isn’t swaying anyone, though as Cat or someone said above, he may be preaching to the (know-nothing-about-art) choir.

Hey, Max’s comment is gone from the guy’s article! Why???

Wonder if they guy knows about this thread?

The comment appears and disappears. I suspect they’re using some sort of janky Javascript for the comments.

Even if he examined his reaction and came up with the same conclusion, my guess is that people would still criticize him for not seeing what they see.

I don’t think so. Personally, I can read something I don’t agree with; I don’t need to see eye-to-eye with someone’s perspective. I may not agree with their conclusion but I can’t honestly criticize how the writer arrived at that conclusion.

The same goes for political writing. In that arena, as with arts criticism, I may not agree with the conclusion but I can certainly become better informed, and even entertained, by reviewing the writer’s road to that end. In some cases, it’s fun just to watch a disaster waiting to happen.

I never complain when somebody honestly reaches a different conclusion using the same facts. My complaint is when people come to a different conclusion using no facts at all.

I have not seen The Quick and the Dead show at the Walker. I might hate it if I did. My complaint is that this writer was so unconcerned with facts that he couldn’t even be bothered to look up the name.

When it comes down to it, I think, like most rights, the right to an opinion comes with responsibilities, and, in this instance, the responsibility is to have an informed opinion. (Just as I would hope that the right to vote is balanced by the responsibility to know the issues and a little about who you are voting for; I know this is often not the case, and I think democracy suffers as a result). I don’t ever blame somebody for saying “I don’t know much about this subject, so I don’t have an opinion”; it’s what I have been trying to do when I don’t know about something. But I am always amazed when somebody is comfortable saying “I don’t know about this, but I have an opinion.”

An opinion based on what?

I like how he seems to think that artists are all making a killing off of their work.

I never complain when somebody honestly reaches a different conclusion using the same facts. My complaint is when people come to a different conclusion using no facts at all

Ultimately, are you supposed to express an opinion on something subjective like art using facts. If you’re writing a critical piece on art work you can provide a history and some context for the artwork and comment on technique but ultimately the personal judgment whether you like it or not or whether it’s meaningless to you cannot possibly be fact based.

That said, could you please clarify the following.

1. The factual basis for this statement.
Of course, the third option is that it was a young man’s own tale of how art frightens him, but, since he blamed the art rather than examining himself, he didn’t do a bang up job of that either.

2. How his article means that he’s uneducated on the subject and that someone who thinks that the art at a museum is nonsense is unfamiliar or uneducated on it. Or that someone stating a similar opinion (although not similarly written) didn’t bother to look up stuff… (based on your following two comments)?

But when you start making the case that there is some sort of con game going on, or that an arts organization is just nonsense, as this fellow did, I think it behooves you to actually learn a little bit about the subject.

I feel that argument is made by lazy people who can’t be bothered to even wander over to the Internet and fire up Wikipedia for a moment, but great tragedy and foolishness are built on great ignorance,

3. Generally, how would one factually go about doing the following?

Obviously our discussion needs to be about what happens when unfunny people try to be funny. Because this is like the Towering Inferno of unfunny.

@uptown_urbanist: That’s why opinion pieces such as Ben’s are potentially dangerous. He operates under certain assumptions that are not universally true, i.e. stereotypes.

Like newspaper comment writers who automatically assume every Latino working in the US is working here illegally.

You miss my point, Brandi. My complaint is not that he didn’t like the art, it’s that he posed the idea that the art itself was nonsense. One is an opinion — the other is an thesis, and theses are bolstered by facts.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at, Brandi. Instead of hitting me with a series of question, why don’t you plainly state your opinion about this young man’s writing, and about opinions in general.

I guess my only question for you is do you think an ill-informed opinion is just as good as a well-informed one, and why?

The bit about discussing comedy was meant in jest. But did you find him funny? Did you even think he was trying to be funny?

I’d say this guy’s opinion on whether or not “The Quick and the Dead” is crap is more informed then mine or yours Max. Because he’s seen it and we haven’t. What more does he need? He saw it, he thinks its crap.

Again I’ll go back to the NASCAR example. I don’t have to learn about it to express my opinion that it is stupid. I know enough and have seen enough. I also don’t know very much about the butter heads at the state fair, but I think they are awesome. I’ve seen them, and they are cool, and I’m expressing my opinion. Do I have to be a dairy farmer and State Fair hisotrian for that opinion to be valid?

If this guy would have had the exact same bad writing and humor in a positive review of the Walker, no one would complain or second guess the guy.

It reminds me of the kind of stuff Klosterman used to write for the Dakota Student. Other kids thought it was hilarious.

I’m sorry, I must have done a bad job of explaining myself, KC. I don’t mind that he didn’t like the show. I haven’t seen the show, so I don’t have an opinion about it.

My complaint is that he went on to extrapolate that there is something useless about the art itself, that it is all just some ridiculous ploy by lazy do-nothings to make money off of duping fools, and he thinks people shouldn’t support it.

That’s quite a bit different than “I didn’t like it,” wouldn’t you say? And do you disagree that such a statement would benefit from something more than spending a few hours wandering through a gallery?

In fairness, I can’t take your opinion about Nascar too seriously, though, as you have admitted it is without any additional information. All that I get out of it is “KC doesn’t like it.” Fair enough, but, to be perfectly blunt, so what?

“If this guy would have had the exact same bad writing and humor in a positive review of the Walker, no one would complain or second guess the guy.”

That’s impossible to prove or disprove. I wonder if we could stick to a discussion not based on suppositions based on what would happen if the world were different?

In general I think positive reviews of things get a pass. Someone says, “The rib stuffed burger at Vincent is pretty good” no one is going to ask you much of a follow up but if you say “the pork chop at 112 is pretty bad, they are just scamming people with something that has no value” you are going to get some pretty intense scrutiny from anyone who has ever eaten a pork chop at 112.

All that I get out of it is “KC doesn’t like it.” Fair enough, but, to be perfectly blunt, so what?

So, this guy doesn’t like the art at the walker, so what?

His view is perfectly valid and based on facts. The facts that he has seen the art and thinks it is crap. He gives examples of what he thinks is crap.

That’s impossible to prove or disprove. I wonder if we could stick to a discussion not based on suppositions based on what would happen if the world were different?

It is actually impossible, at this point, to prove or disprove what this guy knows about art and what he knows about the art at the Walker. He never said he didn’t get a guide. I still think he was trying to be funny. And part of that was by being flippant, which many college students do. This whole arguement is based on things that we cannot prove or disprove without the author’s imput.

Again I’ll go back to the NASCAR example. I don’t have to learn about it to express my opinion that it is stupid.

Here’s the slippery slope, though, kc!:

The National Arts Board (or whatever) is seeking public funding. It will receive funding if x number of legislators vote in favor of it. Parading before these legislators, however, are an army of constituents whose sole opinion about “the arts” is that “it sucks.”

The legislators vote against funding.

Max, I asked you a couple of questions to clarify your position. I’m trying to understand somethings you are saying, so instead of getting defensive and dismissing the questions, why don’t you just answer them and give me some more insight into your thinking.

Considering that you’ve explicitly stated several times that people need to educate themselves and be more informed on a topic if they’re going to discuss it, I’d think that you would approve of people questioning your positions in order to gain a deeper understanding of something. Are questions only appropriate when they are definitively going to reinforce the position of the person being questioned?

I am assuming you understood the questions individually and, if you didn’t, feel free to clarify specifically you don’t understand and I’ll try to the best of my abilities to rephrase it and clarify.

What I find especially interesting that you’re dismissive of my series of questions and refuse to answer them because they don’t meet your standards of being relevant to the argument but then you immediately follow up with a series of questions to better understand what I am saying. Why do you get to ask questions with the expectation of an answer, yet I don’t?

And yeah, I was joking about the comedy thing as well. Sorry that got lost in translation. For reals.

My “so what” was meant to mean “so why bring it into a public discussion?” There are a lot of things I don’t like. I really only bring it up when somebody is asking me to do it. “No thank you, I don’t really like to eat spiders.”

But I’m not about to write an article about how I don’t like to eat spiders, unless I felt a need to warn people away from eating spiders.

Stupid spiders.

I still think he was trying to be funny.

I must’ve missed the part where he wrote something humorous. I was left with the impression that, overall, he’d never before been in an art gallery of any kind. But that he thought a wrecked car and “crazy stuff” playing on an old TV were notable. And that stuffed dog.

Of all the things at the Walker, those three things (plus that crazy-assed “Quick and the Dead”) left the deepest impression on Ben.

That, to me, is a sad state of affairs.

I guess I don’t really understand what you are digging for, Bixby. But it’s strange that you would complain, as the questions I asked you were the exact ones I asked on Twitter yesterday, and you didn’t answer.

I have only one point, and it isn’t very complicated. Opinions are better when educated, and arguments are better when bolstered by facts. I’m not following what you find incomprehensible about this statement, so I am trying to suss out whether you disagree with it or not.

Maybe because he’s writes for the college paper and thinks money shouldn’t be going to crap art? That’s one reason to write about it. Maybe I bring up NASCAR because I think it is a waste of public airways to show it.

And noodleman, but if he thinks it is crap, he probably doesn’t want his public dollars going toward it. He should have the right to say that and should vote for his legislators based on that opinion. He should also try and sway others of his opinion.

Maybe because he’s writes for the college paper and thinks money shouldn’t be going to crap art?

You see, that’s an opinion I would want bolstered by facts. If somebody is going to make a statement that can potentially have a negative impact on somebody, it really is their obligation to make their case, and “I don’t like it” is not enough of a case to argue against financing an arts institution. What if I didn’t like the goverment organization you worked for? I saw the building and thought it was ugly, and didn’t like the posture of people who stood there, and then wrote the governor telling him I thought it was a crap job and he should cut funding? Wouldn’t you prefer I have a better, more informed argument than that?

It seems what particular irritates Max is the idea that artists are con artists… maybe if we drop all the other fillaments of this thread and stick to that we could have a group hug and a beer.

The fact is (heh) that I’ve left the Walker with the same impression. I’ve also felt like I was being had on by movie directors, authors, even playwrights. Actually, ESPECIALLY by playwrights.

The fact is that experimental genres don’t really have an objective way to measure their success and failure. (I’m not content to say “I had an emotional reaction.” I had an emotional reaction to finding a dead squirrel in my garage. So what? That doesn’t make it art.) And when you have no inner rubric and no means by which to judge something, there’s a nagging suspicion that the artist is faking it. After all, there is no real, measurable difference between being for real and faking it in those cases. I suspect that even the artist/author/playwright is worried that he or she is faking it and will be “found out.”

If it makes Max feel better, I think it’s a given that artists are trying in those cases, and working hard, and being thoughtful about what they are doing.

I would also say that to a degree all artistic enterprise is a kind of con job. You are trying to persuade people that your tree sap and wood grain alcohol is a magical elixer. You make it out of ordinary ingredients and hope it is magical. I see nothing insulting about that. I embrace the meme.

And if I ever stop worrying whether or not I’m for real, then I’m done growing as a writer.

“If somebody is going to make a statement that can potentially have a negative impact on somebody, it really is their obligation to make their case.”

I can say from personal experience that professional book reviewers don’t always play by Max’s rules. Cough. Cough. Kirkus. Cough.

Well, everythings a sort of con job by those metrics.

We can fairly ask, what was the artist trying to do? Did they succeed? Is it even worth doing? Is it artistically pleasing? If not, was that deliberate? Is it still worthwhile if it is alienating? And that leads to broader discussions about the function of art in society, and they’re all good questions, and are worth exploring.

“I didn’t like it” is a jumping off point for those dicussions, but, if that’s all you have to offer, it is entirely fair for me to say back “Who cares what you like?”

Truthfully, I’m astonished that my suggestion that an informed opinion is stronger than an uninformed opinion is the source of any controversy. It’s a tautology.

That’s a rather disingenuous summation of the discussion thus far.

Apolgies; I wasn’t attempting to sum up the conversation. Merely to state that some in this discussion, as well as elsewhere, seem to take issue with my premise. I should have been clearer.

I don’t think he’s trying to be funny; he was trying to be clever. And if Spinal Tap taught us anything, it is that it’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.

I bet the REAL motivation for writing this piece was mentioning the date and the big trip to The Cities! Wanted to rub in in some recent ex’s face. Isn’t that what journalism is all about?

Well, then. I agree that an informed opinion is stronger than yours, er, an uninformed one.

I don’t think anyone disagreed. They just thought that anecdoting your own experience is legitimate for a review. You go to a burger place, eat the hamburger, and decide it was OK. You go to a movie, laugh or cry or fall asleep, and write about it. Why do you need special credentials to write about going to a museum?

Yes it is. I applaud that aspect of his writing, and should have told him.

Jane, that’s a brilliant and insightful reading. They do say that all criticism is autobiographical.

The answer to your question is sort of complicated, kurtis, so bear with me.

A lot of modern art defined by the amount of intellectual engagement it demands. It has marked a movement away from art that can be understood exclusively by looking at it, to art that requires additional engagement, especially when you’re dealing with nonrepresentational art. To an extent, this is true of all art — if we weren’t familiar with the conventions of comic books, for instance, we might not understand them when we first read them, and religious art expects that the viewer know the story being represented to get the meaning of the piece. But we’re pretty well educated in that sort of art, and pretty poorly educated in a lot of modern arts, and so it’s more common for us to repond uncomprehendingly to stuff like what you might find at the Walker.

Now, the Walker is good at providing additional resources for the art, but they also have a taste for art that can be very challenging or confrontational when you first see it. It’s not unusual for people not to get it and not to like it, and that’s fine. And if you don’t enjoy being challenged, and you don’t especially want to do any research, the Walker might not be the right place for you.

But that’s true of other arts. People stormed out of 2001 A Space Odyssey, and threw chairs at the stage when Waiting for Godot debuted. We might instantaneously be able to have an opinion about Burger Jones, but if we have never had Indian food before, we might need some explanation, and we might need to acclimate ourselves to the food before we can appreciate it. I did not like whiskey when I first drank it, and now I can’t get enough. So we recognize that our first experience with something new might not be definitive. In some cases, we decide don’t want to look further into it, and that’s fine. But modern art seems to be especially victim to viewers simply decided that it’s all a lot of hooey by a bunch of smart asses who are trying to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes, and I think it’s a product of a cultural insecurity about art, and about not wanting to look foolish. It’s the same insecurity that keeps people from going to the opera, or trying Thai food, or learning to dance. And I think we are made poorer by this insecurity, and by our own willingness to dismiss things because we don’t spontaneously understtand it.

What if I didn’t like the goverment organization you worked for? I saw the building and thought it was ugly, and didn’t like the posture of people who stood there, and then wrote the governor telling him I thought it was a crap job and he should cut funding? Wouldn’t you prefer I have a better, more informed argument than that?

You don’t think this doesn’t happen EVERY DAY? But this I don’t care about. Because they are opinions. When they get the facts wrong, like what we do and how we do it, then I get mad. But this guy never got his facts wrong. You just don’t like his opinion.

If somebody is going to make a statement that can potentially have a negative impact on somebody, it really is their obligation to make their case,

If I said, “I love the Walker” then that could “potentially have a negative impact on somebody.” Do I really have an obligation to make a case? What if because of that, the Walker gets more funding and the MIA less? Or the Walker gets more funding and the schools get less? Ultimately every opinion could have a negaive impact on someone.  So I expect that every opinion you express from here on out has a paragraph of explanation.  Positive opinions can have negative effects.

I always try to support my opinions, KC, and make sure they are informed. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed that, but that may be my own failing.

Informed vs. uninformed opinions:

Me: Hey, I got this pizza that has chicken, feta cheese and artichokes on it. Wanna try it?

She: Uh-uh. I don’t like artichokes on pizza.

Me: Really? Well, you’ll hardly notice these.

She: Um, okay. I’ll try some.

[Later]

She: Hey, that was pretty good.

Me: And to think you thought you didn’t like artichokes.

She: Oh, yeah, that. I remembered it was sardines I didn’t like on pizzas. I’ve never had an artichoke before.

Well, that was a thorough and articulate post, Max. Or comment. I mostly agree, and I’ve lost all interest in arguing about the minor points where I don’t.

Art demands engagement and reflection…these are two things that are in short supply in todays fast paced world.

I think this fella did both and although I don’t agree with his summary I think it is valid enough.

@jane I love the statement:
“And if Spinal Tap taught us anything…”

Max, I didn’t answer on Twitter because there’s only so much you can say in 140 characters at a time at it was early in the morning. Furthermore, you may not have thought that I addressed your points on Twitter but there are others who read the exchange who think I did. I thought I did. I am completely out of ways to explain the same the over and over.

Still, this doesn’t really explain why you refuse to answer the individual questions that I asked of you. Who said that I was “digging for something”. I would like you to provide answers for two questions and, for some reason, because I am not giving you a road map of how I might react to the answers, you refuse to answer them.

I don’t have a road map for what I am digging for because a couple of things you are saying are coming across as muddled to me and I am attempting to clarify them for my own understanding.

Also, you’re not addressing why it’s okay for you to answer question or keep asking questions that you feel were not adequately responded to but not for others to expect the same of you.

Is there some particular reason you are especially resistant to answering the questions besides you don’t know where the answers would lead me to respond to you in the whole grand scheme of the discussion? If you feel someway about something and you are asserting a postion, then what’s wrong with owning the position and answering the questions based on what you believe?

What if this student had been asking the artist questions about the art, questions that were predicated on the fact that the student really didn’t get it and was trying to figure out if he was missing something. Would it be okay for the artist to decline to answer them and try to offer meaning to the student on the basis that he didn’t get what the student was digging for? And, if at that point the student goes back and writes an article blasting the ridiculousness of the artwork because he never got some clarification, is he ignorant and uninformed because the artist won’t answer the question.

And also, this ties back to an early assertion you made about artists and curators being willing to answer questions and attempt to educate people on the artwork if people are willing to ask questions:

Considering how personal the creation of art is to the artist, I don’t find it outlandish that they would be even more defensive than you are about your opinion when it comes to someone questioning their sweat and tears, their artwork. Furthermore, I don’t find it difficult to believe that curators at the Walker wouldn’t as defensive when it came to someone questioning the validity of the value the curators gave to a piece of art.

All right, ask me the questions again, and I’ll asnwer them. I was having a hard time teasing out the specific questions, although I thought I answered one or two.

Also, it is fairly easy to set up a series of questions that create contradictions in a basic premise, and then use those to discredit the premise, because there will always be some situations in which the premise doesn’t apply or where a seeming contradiction appears. As I am not sure whether you even agree with my premise, I wanted to be sure what was being asked and why.

And the one question I have not heard the answer from you about, and must have just missed, is whether you think an informed education is stronger than an uninformed opinion.

“What if this student had been asking the artist questions about the art, questions that were predicated on the fact that the student really didn’t get it and was trying to figure out if he was missing something. Would it be okay for the artist to decline to answer them and try to offer meaning to the student on the basis that he didn’t get what the student was digging for?”

When this comes up, we can address it. It would be specific to the artist and the piece of art.

If anything Kurtis has inspired me to follow my dreams and start an automotive review blog. Book deals ahoy!

Also, what sorts of questions do you think would prompt this outrage from the Walker or from the artist? Why is this entire discussion now being predicated on hypotheticals?

There is a whole thread on the main page that has people slamming public works of art with no reasoning, yet no one seems to care. It probably got as many views or more than this guy’s op-ed would have if Max, Erica, et. al. wouldn’t have linked to it.

Also, on the front page, Max says about the Landmark exhibit “We visited yesterday, and it’s excellent” but has not reasoning as to why it is excellent, just his favorite part.

I think people don’t like this guys writing style, his opinion, and maybe that he is from St. Cloud, so they jump on him. But if certain regular MNSpeakers do the same, they get a pass.

It has always been predicated on hypotheticals. We don’t know what the author knows and doesn’t know about art, yet it is said over and over again he is uneducated about it. That is a hypothetical.

Just for the record, Spinal Tap has taught me a lot!

Yes. Had I said “We visited yesterday and it was terrible,” I would have felt a much stronger need to back up what I was saying. As it is, I felt Coco’s article did a good job explaining the good qualities of the show.

As to the thread on public works of art, it seemed most people there were simply saying “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” As I have said, I’m fine with people simply liking or disliking something.

Well, I think I’ve said all I can say on this topic and have asked all the questions that I feel like asking.

So, I think that I too am going to peace out on this thread.

It’s been interesting.

KC, he didn’t know the name of the exhibit. That’s not a “what if,” it’s a “he didn’t.” He didn’t name any of the pieces of art. He didn’t give any explanation. If he knows more, he did a good job of hiding it, and expressing it would have stregnthened his argument.

Bizarre. I guess I will never know the answer to the one question I had of Bixby.

“Can you dust for vomit?” If that is your question to Bixby, the answer is no.

You can’t?

Oh, man. Then I made an awful mess or no reason at all.

Well, the nuns at my catholic schools would argue. Not only can they dust for vomit, but they can make the whole room smell all pepperminty.

DUST the vomit, or dust FOR vomit?

Bad catholic school joke. *blushes*

But, to change the subject, this is in honor of kc’s MASCAR analogy: This is art? Damn.

Jane, if you don’t mind answering follow-up questions, I’m wondering why someone would attempt to dust for vomit and what factual basis do you have for answering no?

Also, before you ask what I’m digging for, for legal reasons, I’d rather not get into that.

Jane, if you don’t mind answering follow-up questions, I’m wondering why someone would attempt to dust for vomit and what factual basis do you have for answering no?

Also, before you ask what I’m digging for, for legal reasons, I’d rather not get into that.

If anything Kurtis has inspired me to follow my dreams and start an automotive review blog. Book deals ahoy!

Huzzah! I knew there’d be a positive outcome to this discussion. I’ll be among the first in line to read it Andy, as I always am with anything you write!

Jane, if you don’t mind answering follow-up questions, I’m wondering why someone would attempt to dust for vomit and what factual basis do you have for answering no?

Also, before you ask what I’m digging for, for legal reasons, I’d rather not get into that.

Bixby x 3.

Triangulated.

I’ve loved all of Jane’s comments so far.

I don’t know why kc!’s comments are the ones that made me want to copy/paste/respond, but here they are.

Again I’ll go back to the NASCAR example. I don’t have to learn about it to express my opinion that it is stupid. I know enough and have seen enough. I also don’t know very much about the butter heads at the state fair, but I think they are awesome. I’ve seen them, and they are cool, and I’m expressing my opinion. Do I have to be a dairy farmer and State Fair hisotrian for that opinion to be valid?

Would you be willing to publish an op-ed in your college newspaper about how stupid NASCAR is based on what you do know?

His view is perfectly valid and based on facts.

My main point here is about trust and reputation. This kid is entirely entitled to his opinion. The opinion he expressed is based on his experience. Fine. Lots of people agree with him. Fine. But in order for me to take it seriously as commentary on the art, I need to know that he knows what he’s talking about. Since I don’t know him, I can only infer from what he wrote, and that inference is that he hasn’t studied art and didn’t try too hard to learn more about what he was seeing. Based on that, I lend no credence to the opinion he expressed about the art, and I wouldn’t base my decision to go look at the art on anything he said.

I think people don’t like this guys writing style, his opinion, and maybe that he is from St. Cloud, so they jump on him. But if certain regular MNSpeakers do the same, they get a pass.

To a small extent, if someone is a regular MNspeaker, I know a little something about them and that influences how seriously I take their expressed opinions about cars, art, steaks, butter sculptures, NASCAR, whatever. (I’d argue a great steak and a butter sculpture have many similar qualities, btw.)

in my best Dude accent
“but that’s like…yer opinion…man.”

Bixby, if someone dies mysteriously, you can dust for fingerprints and try to find the culprit. If someone dies choking on vomit, on someone else’s vomit, well, it’s just a mystery, b/c you can’t really dust for vomit.

Thus spake Nigel Tufnel. Amen.

Don’t get me started on all the stuff I’ve learned from “The Dude.”

“…Ben Kaufman is apparently not an artist himself, nor does he have any kind of art background. I am no artist, student of art history, connoisseur of modern art, museum curator, or even remotely arty person myself…”

I *am* an artist, with an artistic background (in fact, I used to work at the Walker Art Center). And some of what they show is, indeed, total crap.

Not everything, mind you, but certainly a higher percentage of crap-to-art than some of the other museums and galleries in town.

Case in point:

The Belgian artist who the Walker Art Center flew in over a period of two years, who spent that time making 2-hour still videos of the window in his apartment, and ceramic “sculptures” of his handprints. (Oh, and he also made a video of a “spoon bridge” snow globe from the museum gift shop -that was AWESOME.)

Yes, context is important. And a little knowledge of Art History is certainly helpful.

But at a certain point, the art needs to be judged on its own merits.

As a painter I know once said, “Art is about communicating an idea or feeling, and if it’s not communicating with the audience, it’s not very effective.”

The fact that Honeywell (or the Best Buy corporation), or a wealthy patron or collector is willing to throw money at certain “name brand” artists lends their artwork a kind of legitimacy that most working artists will never have. (A dead shark? -”that is to laugh!” But a dead shark in the Charles Saatchi collection? “Brilliant!”)

I’m not saying that I completely agree with everything that Ben Kaufman wrote in his original article. But sometimes a gut reaction (”the Emperor has no clothes!”) is just as valid as an expert opinion.

Damien Hurst, is that you? I didn’t peg you as a MNSpeak reader!

Some art is crap, no doubt. But not because it isn’t instantly palatable. Not everything needs to communicate instantly. In fact, I don’t mind that some art makes no sense at all. I think we have an idea that art is some sort of conveyance device for deep thoughts. Sometimes, a line is just a line.

I got an email from Ben, the author, to tell me he actually is a fan of the arts. It was a rather nice letter. I wrote back to suggest he go back to the Walker and try some of their other offerings — they have a lot of art, and not all of it is going to be to everybody’s taste, but some of it probably will.

@Shark: I don’t think any (many?) of us criticized Ben for expressing his opinion. Yes, some art is crap, i.e. art for art’s sake. Yes, some artists are commissioned to create crap. Been there; done that. But we’d be able to express our opinion of such things in more detail beyond “what a pile of junk.”

Ben doesn’t need to establish his bona fides any more than a person running for political office needs to have majored in political science or political history in order to qualify as a candidate.

Are we still talking about this place?1? One from the vaults: MNSpeak’s first post (April 23, 2005), a review of an exhibit at the Walker.

Not everything in an art museum is art.
A concept is not art. Art is a concept or image that has been created with the use of a skill or talent.
I have a good story, I have been to numerous Art museums in Chicago, NY and where I live- Philadelphia. I have also been to the Walker.
The Philadelphia museum had a room at one time, a special work the museum paid for with millions of dollars. White walls with crayon scribbles of all colors. No images of any kind. Just a concept that it was influenced by the Illiad.
We heard the guides description of it and lingered on. We were not with the tour. We were commenting to each other how the room looks like they let a three year old in to scribble over the walls. The security guard over heard us and added his comment, “All I can say is he must have been a great salesman.”

So why is it art? Because it challenges and idea of what art is? That is a concept without skill applied to it.
Unfortunately, the intellectual art world is taken in too often by a concept without skill applied.
Not all modern art is this way, but there is a good portion of it that is. Maybe we do need to start calling it what it is, instead of a feigned intellectualism that we get it and others do not because they have not taken the time.
I’ve seen that work of art as it is described, numerous times. It is still crayons on the wall no matter how long you look at it and at varying distances, etc.

RWB
PS- I was born and lived in MN for 21 years.