Artsy Fartsy

So yesterday Rebekah and I went to the National Art Gallery in Ottawa. It was my pick for the day. Now, I'll be the first to admit: I'm no critic. I don't understand technique or theory; I am the least artistic person you'll ever meet if you take away my words; in fact, I can't even draw a convincing stick person. But nonetheless I still love art exhibitions. (And this one was particularly cool because it's so much larger than anything they show in Winnipeg. My favourites were definitely the European gallery and the Photography gallery.) But like I said, I don't really know much about what exactly makes something "art". I mean, I don't believe that it can be defined in the first place. People have been trying for centuries and as far as I know a consensus has not been reached. I remember discussing the question "what is literature?" in a high school English class and it was the same type of dilemma.

Who gets to decide what is "brilliant", "genius", or "original"? Who makes the call? What gives some museum curator ultimate taste? How can you look at a "piece of art" and come to the conclusion that it should cost 2.5 million dollars and be on display in a National Art Gallery?

Now, like I said, most of the time I really love to look at art. Heck, I even like a lot of abstract art. I don't need a degree to see that an artist is experimenting with dimension, shape, colour, etc.; even if I don't understand exactly WHAT they were trying to do, I can still get something out of it for myself. However, I do have a bone to pick with some of the "art" I saw yesterday. See first example below:

This one is called "The Lever". Ya, that's in the museum. What the heck???

Ok, one of the paintings was literally a giant white canvas. At the bottom it had a huge zig-zag in blue topped by a huge zig-zag in red. Then, a little further towards the top, the "artist" slapped on a giant blob of brown and a slightly smaller blob of yellow and smeared them around. That was hanging in a National Art Gallery that I paid $16 to enter. Seriously? And then around the corner was an even larger canvas. Like, I'm talking at least 12 feet high, maybe 6 wide. The outside edges were painted navy blue. Between those blue edges it was painted red. That's it. Not even kidding. And on the wall next to that one was a giant solid black square painting with a tiny stripe of neon yellow on one edge. Ok, for real. I hesitate to say this because I'm sure that all of the more highly-educated artsy people out there will be heading out to lynch me in a few minutes for giving my small-town uninformed opinion as there must be SOMETHING I'm not comprehending here, but...I COULD PAINT THOSE. And then there was this room with some artist's exhibit of what is called "readymade art". So in all seriousness, it was a white platform with several items sitting on it, such as a stool with a wheel screwed on top, a shovel hanging from the ceiling ... oh, and let's not forget the wooden coatrack lying on the floor. Yes, that was INSIDE the velvet rope INSIDE the exhibit. I even read the giant sign explaining what "readymade art" means and why I am being asked to pay good $ to stand in front of a bunch of crap I could find in my own house. I WANTED to understand. I ATTEMPTED to find the genius. I TRIED to set my own narrow-minded assumptions and expectations aside in the name of art. But I'm sorry, I just can't. How does someone make millions of dollars off of that stuff? Like, all of these were displayed in the same museum with some of the most beautiful religious European paintings in the world! Paintings with mind-blowing landscapes and the most intricate details; light and shadow playing on the skin of the most life-like people. There was this one painting, probably about 6x3 feet, of this old man in some kind of stone courtyard. It was huge. It was magnificent. The intricacies were all perfect. He looked like he was going to jump off the canvas at me. And it was painted by this famous European artist hundreds of years ago as his final work for university! It wasn't even his best stuff, just his ... final exam, I guess. (The painting on the left isn't the actual piece I was talking about. It's one of the ones I liked, though.) Why is his work forced to share space with something my 3 year old nephew could do blindfolded with a paintbrush between his toes? (My 2 year old niece ate pretzels with her feet the other day. I consider her more talented than some of the artists featured in this museum.)


I have felt this way about a lot of "art" for a long time and maybe if I actually write about it someone who understands more than I do can set my straight and tear a strip off of my obviously insular, provincial, conservative, and intolerant hide. I honestly just want to understand. Is there something about the brushstrokes on a canvas painted all one colour that I am supposed to be noticing? Was it painted by some embryo prodigy with no limbs? Someone please explain this to me.

Well, that's all for today's rant.


But I just want to say that I did love the gallery. Most of it was absolutely impressive and positively stunning. Some of the photographs are unforgettable. Like the picture of the Eiffel Tower at night with lightning striking all around it. I really truly enjoyed our visit and it was worth every penny. But it really annoyed me that the pieces I just ranted about were taking up space in a place that is supposed to enliven and inspire.

Again, I am really open to all opinions/explanations.

<- isn't this Degas gorgeous???