Why is popular art considered to be bad art?

Ken Kipen's article on style in Photo Techniques got me thinking

about this(a bit of a tangent I know, but popular artists do exhibit

a unique style, though are often criticized for it) What I'm

thinking of here is that Kincaid fellow, Churchill and his poker

playing dogs, and photographers who sell zillions of posters,

poscard and calender scenes and "reproduction" prints. I can see

that all(?) popular art contains a paradox of elements. Something

familiar and satisfying, and at the same time something mysterious

and provocative. In an issue a View Camera awhile back, someone was

writing about things "hidden in plain sight." I like it. The public

likes it. Art critics pan it. In an election, the public will is

given god-like authority, but in its art, the public is generally

regarded as unwashed, unintelligent, and uncultured. I'm curious,

what do you think?

john -

 

sorry to be part of the "great-unwashed" but i am partial to the crying clowns, and

the v'elvis ( velvet elvis).

it isn't bad art, it is just art for the masses ...

if it were bad art it would be here:

http://www.glyphs.com/moba/

(moba= museum of bad art)

 

:)

john

I'm rather fond of those poker playing dogs! :-)

Remy, Grow Up? Never!! As to why should I be concerned about what art critics espouse? Because 'they' write the textbooks on art that my kids will be studying someday, because 'they' award the grants to museums, because 'they' buy what gets parked on public property with my modest(ha!) contribution to the public coffers, and 'they' get to rag in the syndicated press, television(and on the internet) people whose work I enjoy and the rest of the art gurus just roll over an thier collective bellies and agree with the criticism du jur. Such critics dismiss the work of more popular photograpers as insignificant but can't or won't explain the significance such work has on the Public's embrace of such images(aside from a callous dismissal citing something like 'lack of taste' or copycat buying) I'm really just curious as to how this state of affairs got so imbedded in society.-Cheers!

One of my favorite artists is M. C. Escher, who is unfortunately not that well appreciated by the art world.

 

I bring up the point once again of the recent van Gogh discovery. The painting was valued at $100, until they decided it was an unsigned van Gogh, then it sold for $400,000 or so. If only da Vinci had painted those dogs playing poker, it would be great art. But if you or I paint the Mona Lisa, it's just another $5 painting at a garage sale.

John,

 

I don't think Remy meant you. He just did not articulate thorougly. I believe he was directing his feeling towards those who do not think for themselves. If he gave a moments thought I'm sure he recognised that you were posing a very good question.

 

Pop art has always been considered cheap and vulgar. Often it is. Andy Warhol comes to mind. But then Van Gough was not really appreciated in his time. He insisted on painting just what was before him on any given day. Some of his paintings are truly astonishing if you give them a moment. The man WAS a genius in many ways.

 

I think Picasso was a great artist but he did a great mound of cheap toss off crap just to make a buck in his life. I think some of the architecture we are seeing today will go down in history as some of the nastiest wet dreams ever foisted upon the public but the guys that are doing it right now are the top of their field.

 

Generally, to my mind, 'art' is a vast wasteland in this day and age but every once in a while you find the most perfect oasis and it makes it all worth while.

Stephen, Interesting! I can see money coming into play, but perhaps more in the realm of faculty tenures and sculptures made with fesces. Consider this: a thousands of people go out one December and decide, unbeknown to each other, that they all want a calender illustrated with circa 1950s black and white photos of say, Half Dome. They do this not because some interior decorator on HGTV did it, not because say, Jennifer Anniston has one on the set of "Friends." or the automobile club magazine published an article on Whatshisname's tripod holes in Yosemite. All these calenders were sold because the Public has a genuine connection with the images---none of these calenders will ever be worth more than they were on the December day. In fact, come February they will be 50% off. Ten months later the calenders are either trashed, or saved. Some of the images decorate Dilbert cubicles in an office building or are tacked up in dorm rooms. Maybe some are even put into frames and hung in people's homesThe frames would have more monetary worth than the calender picture!)---substitute babies in flowerpots or even overgrown Hansel and Gretel thatched cottages if you prefer, but my point is, why does the art world feel threatened when a large percentage of the public embraces an image, or a body of work, by a photographer(or other artist)? I don't mean to endorse Adams or Geddes, or that Kincaid guy(but maybe Churchill and his poker playing Dogs) but I am just trying to figure out where Art is headed---not just why the popular images garner critcism, but why the people who enjoy those images are criticized for doing what comes, to them, naturally: enjoying art!?--------cheers!

Lack of rigour. Lack of vision

Scott, Good point!(Several good points!) Your observation that Art today is a vast wasteland goes along with what I've been thinking--not that there isn't great Art being created---there certainly is---but that it maybe in today's world it has to be validated in some way by someone who is considered an 'expert' in order to be worthwhile. This seems to me to be contrary to what makes Art "worthwhile." The cave painting in France of a hunting party needs no explaination, nor does a fertility statue from Africa, a totem pole from B.C. or the Pieta in Rome. All these things I would call Art and certainly worthy. I find thatched Hanzel and Gretal cottages a bit much, but I think this is due to the simple observation that there is a finite number of ways a thatched hanzel and gretel cottage can be portrayed in the same style(yes,like Half Dome) In fact I do agree with Remy that in my own feeble attempts at making photographs, I'm not really concerned with critics who have thier heads up where the sun don't shine---of course there is criticism I respect and am grateful for, but if a critic took to task someone for enjoying a print because they in some way connected with it, I wouldn't consider such criticism legitimate.

John,

 

Speaking of Hansel and Grettle cottages... Let's imagine a real one. Yes the legitimate item full scale ... on the verge of a wood next to a high alpine meadow with the Matterhorn in the distance ... or Pikes Peak, if you will. Would that be art? 'twould to me. Just a real thatched roof is art to me. .... (give my eye teeth ... {not to mention the river-stone hearth and the hand-hewn oak mantle}) Let us not even think about the hand quarried rough slate at the entry way and the stained glass border round the entry door light.

 

I think it is all tied up with actual 'artistry' ... and blood, sweat and tears. Or sometimes true genius along with the foregoing.

You mean something like the 'Crucifix In Urine' thing?<p>

About 5 years ago in Castro Valley, CA the arts commission had an 'out of towner' do a sculpture (cost was just over $100,000) which depicted the Ohlone Indian canoe along with the 'Welcome To Castro Valley' sign.<p>

Well, the taxpayers got up in arms because the Ohlone's weren't much of a part of Castro Valley history (I really don't know myself). Anyway, after a few months the sculpture was jackhammered off it's foundation and removed and the people were demanding that the commission tell someone the next time before tossing thousands of dollars around.

Scott, The Art and Artistry thing is very interesting. Is Artistry the same as Art? Is a skilled craftsman an artisan? I tend to think so. Is the act of using a LF camera(argueably a piece of art itself)an 'art'? When I was shoeing horses, it always amazed me that folks would refer to farriery as being a lost 'art' Though every hoof and shoe was, now that I think about it, a sculpture of sorts and the tools of the trade had an elegance, if used correctly--much like those odd tools thatchers used to make Hansel and Gretel cottages. .........Hmmmmm?

Aras unum species milli "Art is one, but kinds a thousand." Art has always been popular, but not ALL art has been popular, or for very long, with a few exceptions. Virtually every artist and/or 'movement' has been hated by some...even Van Gogh is hated. So take each piece on its merits and decide for yourself. Is popular literature good or bad? Yes, both. Or popular music? It seems to me that time alone usually winnows out what is good or bad, or at least, lasting. Perhaps you should try abstract art, about which Al Capp (creator of L'il Abner) said "Abstract art is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered. Like the whole range of music and literature, I can find things I like in all the categories of art.

I wouldn't worry about this, what critics pan this year will be praised and considered great art somewhere down the road. Look at WeeGee. If ever there was a guy who wasn't "art" during his lifetime it was him - had a police radio, chased down murders and accidents so he could photograph them, published in newspapers of all places. Today his work is very much the thing in art circles and is selling at high prices. Or look at Atget. He was so far down the totem pole the critics didn't even know he existed. Or Lewis Hine - he was considered strictly a social reformer in his lifetime, today he's an artist. Even Ansel Adams, who for many years was considered the height of non-art by the art world, is enjoying a renaissance with the museums and critics. So today's schlock (in the minds of the critics) is tomorrow's art, you just have to live long enough for it to happen.

Hey, you can have a Thomas Kinkade house, if you want one:<P>

 

<a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/style/2002/03/18/kinkade_village/">http://www.salon.com/mwt/style/2002/03/18/kinkade_village/</a>

Actually Weegee's work was always highly respected.<P> There is a difference

between bad art, good art, and decorative art. Most of the stuff you describe is

decorative and really neither "bad" or "good". <P> My guess is that whether art is

popular or not is a numbers game (which means it is about marketing) and is

unrelated to the piece itself. After all. The Mona Lisa is popular, but so is the banal

schlock painted by Thomas Kincaid's factory full of assembly line of artists.<P>"Art"

serves a lot of psychological functions for humans as consumers (distinct from

creators): it tells stories, fill empty spaces above couches, reinforces our notions of

who we are or who we might like to be, addresses spiritual concerns, sells products,

gets us sexually aroused, engages our intellects, entertains us, reinforces our

religious beliefs, gives us mental, spiritual and emotional breathing room, it soothes

us, inspires us, enrages us, motivates us, breaks us out of our daily routine. It

expresses things we cannot express for ourselves or cannot put into words.

Ellis, well put! I think what bothers me is that criticism some artists---photographers especially---suffer at the hands of seemingly experts is that the criticism overtly, or covertly implies that if a print or portfolio is revered, embraced, or enjoyed by large numbers of the Public, then the Public is obviously ignorant of "good" art. This isn't to say art and artists shouldn't be critiqued, or that one hasn't a right to speak ones mind, rather I'm troubled by any tactic where a Critic builds his own reputation by ridiculing what the public likes or dislikes---and a system that unquestionly bows to such suspect "authority."-------Cheers!

Oyvind, (I hope I got the spelling right!) The issue of Photo Techniques with Kipen's article on style is the newest----July/August 2003.

I was sure that someone else would bring this up. Since they didn't...

 

Consider western art. Its origins in Europe. Europe's long and storied history of class warfare dating back to the Kings and the serfs.

 

Basically, "popular" art is popular because the "masses" like it. Art patrons, on the other hand, tend to be wealthy and many (certainly not all) have a world view that distinguishes them from the masses. One way to reinforce this view is to have art that is not popular with the masses.

 

To do this and not make your friends and peers look at you funny, you have to have your choices validated by "an authority" which is where the critics come in.

 

Finally, this art is going to tend to not be beautiful or accessible because then the masses might like it. It is going to tend to be full of symbolism, tend toward "making a statement," and tend toward being difficult to understand. These all play to the idea that art is for the well educated, socially sophisticated, and those with "refined tastes." The masses don't like it because they can't understand it, don't you know ;-)

 

This, of course, breeds a lot of hack artists who are excellent promoters. Jackson Pollack is my example for painting, Phillip Glass for music.

 

There is also an overall trend in art to "break new ground" and "do new things" where artists aren't interested in doing work that has any similarities to work that has come before. There aren't many painters painting in the impressionists' sytle today, because that's been done already. Same for music - you don't find any new classic music being done in sonata style, except by scholars trying to figure out what makes Mozart tick.

 

Anyone who does try making art that is beautiful or accessible is usually ridiculed by the critics as unimaginative, lacking creativity, "as trying to use Ansel's tripod holes," etc.

 

The bottom line here is - why do you care what the critics think? Make your own decisions based on your own preferences.

I think that to dismiss Jackson Pollock as a hack is a little rash.

I think that his best works have an intrinsic power, coherence

and unity that defies the reductivist chestnut: " My 3 year kid could

have painted that " Of course his work is non representational

but that is the direction painting was finally free to explore once

photography liberated it. Painting took a step closer to the form of

music.. a purer abstraction. One may not like the work but it is

important to the progression of ideas about form and feeling in

art in the 20th century. I dont believe his career was based upon

intellectual sophistry, I think Pollock had a real and genuine

motivation to express something meaningful through his work,

he was unwittingly caught in a new whirlwind of hype and

commercial pressure, a pressure that led himself and many of

his contemporaries to self destruction.

This is like digital versus film or Leica versus Contax - it can never be solved because there are two completely disparate world views which are by definition irreconcilable.

 

One viewpoint says that art is a thing apart, bound by rules (which they know) and can be graded from good to bad. The other viewpoint (which I happen to subscribe to) is that art is whatever you say it is and there's no such thing as good or bad, only what you like or dislike.

 

I have noticed that people who tend to the first viewpoint are often anal retentives with fascistic tendencies while those adhering to the second viewpoint are often happy chappies with few hangups. Of course, I'm biased :-)

hogarth, Social elitism of the Artsy-fartsy? Is that it? Sounds reasonable enough!

 

 

harvey, OTOH, if Art can't be defined---if it is a "its what you say it is and its also what I say it is so we don't have to call 911 thing" we can stick a fork in it and call it "done." Sadly, what is undefinable in today's world exists only as an anomaly and emotional base speculation is, science tells us, ignorance. Interesting: I've never heard a satisfying definition of Art, though I think Art is recognizable, even by the 'masses.' Art is kind of like a distant relative you can't remember exactly how you're related, but you'd recognize her anywhere. Of course, thats just my anal retentive observation!

<i>I dont believe his career was based upon intellectual sophistry...</i>

<p>

I certainly won't argue that point!

<p>

<i>...I think Pollock had a real and genuine motivation to express something meaningful through his work, he was unwittingly caught in a new whirlwind of hype and commercial pressure, a pressure that led himself and many of his contemporaries to self destruction.</i>

<p>

IIRC, the "whirlwind of hype and commercial pressure" was his wife. It's rumored that after he died, she even managed to sell the paint splattered concrete floor of his old studio to a collector for millions. Now <i><b>that</b></i> is art.

<p>

Pollock may have been motivated to express something meaningful in his work, but if he was motivated by anything other than defrauding rich New Yorkers out of their money, it's lost on me. I must not be sophisticated enough to understand this poor misunderstood soul.

<p>

BTW, it occurs to me that there were plenty of artists out exploring abstraction in many forms before Pollock. I think he was the first to throw buckets of paint through fans, however. To his credit, he never exhibited a clean, white, unpainted canvas though. I forget who it was to foist that one off.

: Why is popular art considered to be bad art?

Because , being called popular means directed to a mass of

people , which means can only have a superficial content .

Van Gogh , and Andy warhol is not popular art , many people say

they like their work , but for sure they don't experience the work to

the depth it was intended to .

Many people say that they like it because it is the right thing to

say and because some works has pretty colours .

Another thing , the masses have notoriously bad taste .

Domenico, ".....the masses have notoriously bad taste." Perhaps. Fads, for the most part, exemplify such a statement but fads are also short lived. Death by Cliche? Public sensibility is kind of like the cambrian layer on the sequoia---as long as it isn't entirely destroy it will heal itself just in time to get burned again, no doubt. More specific to photography, there a hundreds of posters of prints published that find thier way onto walls. Perhaps they are for the most part, mere decoration, but I do think some are purchased because they 'connect' with people in some way---just as how an original print will in some way 'connect' with a Viewer. If such an image 'connects' with a great many viewers that has to account for something. If it isn't Art, what is it?----Cheers!