Sunday, January 13, 2008

JTL: Art Owner.

When I went to New Mexico back in June '07, we took a side-trip one afternoon to Santa Fe. The city was gorgeous, and the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum happened to be downtown where we were. So, I and a few Michiganders with whom I was hanging around took a gander inside.

I'd heard her name before, but never really connected it with any particular works of art or a style or anything. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to art appreciation, but I know what I like when I see it (e.g. Klimt's crazy patterns, Rembrandt's incredible use of brightness and shadows).

Enter O'Keeffe's world of mind-blowing colour, swirly abstraction, overblown flowers that suck you right in, and the impression that somehow — like DalĂ­ — she sees the world in a radically different way than you or I might.

I bought some prints, and finally got around to having them framed and/or matted. Today, despite the potential protestations of Crazy Cat Lady to "all that noise up there," I got out the nails and started hammering into my rock-hard walls, which may or may not be made of some sort of space-age polymer impervious to any such intrusion. So now I have these gracing the walls of my living room:


White Rose Abstraction (1927)


Black Hollyhock Blue Larkspur (1930)


Pelvis Series, Red with Yellow (1945)

Will this turn into a full-time "art blog?" Tune in several times an hour to find out!

5 comments:

kelly o! said...

JTL: Art Print Owner

JTL said...

Split hairs if you want, kellylo, but if it's hanging on my wall, and I paid for it, and it brings me pleasure, it's goddamn art.

kelly o! said...

You know I'm just being difficult.

So according to you, art is something that brings pleasure? What about work that isn't as nice to look at? Is it still art?

JTL said...

I thought about this for a Good Long While -- namely, the time taken to go down the stairs to the laundry room, transfer a load from washer to dryer, and back up that right-angled mountain -- and came up with the following:

Since everyone will always disagree on what exactly constitutes "art" -- punk music? Three stripes on a canvas? Someone contorting themselves on a streetcorner for pure shits & giggles -- nobody, aside from the artist him/herself, is qualified to answer the question with any degree of accuracy or merit.

Even then, if asked, the creator of the work may or may not say it is "art," per se. But it is fully up to them to decide and, no matter if I "enjoy" it or not, it's not up to me. And finally -- maybe the answer doesn't really matter to the artist. In that case, I guess I would, by definition, have to mirror their indifference.

kelly o! said...

Nice answer, although there's always the possibility that the artist won't agree that what they've created is art, but someone else does (idea of the viewer).

And I was only bugging you about the issue of you putting up prints because of the many times I had to read Walter Benjamin's "Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (or something like that, I don't know where my copy is right now) and the idea of aura and the different experiences between seeing the actual artwork in person vs. a reproduction.

The main thing is that these prints have an affect on you.