People who know me very well are familiar with my abject disdain for "modern art." And I'm certainly not alone; this passionate disdain is shared by others. I accept that different people have different tastes, and some enjoy these modern visual oddities. I'd simply ask that they not call it "art." Call it anything else. ("Visually-assisted academic BS" perhaps? This website explores definitions of art much better than I.) For me personally, "art" should at a minimum incorporate one of two things, and ideally both:
1. Be remotely aesthetically pleasing. Not this. Sorry, no.
2. Require more skill to create than a layperson or animal can muster. For example, no. And no.
Granted, some modern art succeeds on both prongs but more often seems to fail on both. This piece by Mark Lawrence is pretty neat.
So, back to my original point. Stained glass is difficult to ruin with grandiose modernity. Even a "minimalist" piece will require a fair amount of effort and resources to make, and the more minimalist it gets, the more it resembles a normal window or an architectural highlight. The modern glass aesthetic also traces its path through people like Frank Lloyd Wright, who made some nifty designs. Furthermore, pieces that follow the modern canvas art traditions still look nice to me, since they inevitably incorporate color and seem more substantial, somehow, than splatters and rectangles on canvas.
In the end, larger stained glass pieces are functional; perhaps they are artistic craft rather than pure art. I tend to like what I see at craft fairs and that may be an insight into my taste and definition of art. Indeed, the Art vs. Craft debate an ongoing affair, so I'll sign out with this essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment