Marty and the Art World

It is said that art is to the artist, by which is meant that art is whatever the artist says it is. I disagree.

I have a very simple yet realistic definition of what makes something art: if I can do it, it ain't art. I'll give you an example: Orange Brown . I can do that. Therefore, it's not art. Yet it actually belongs to the Detroit Institute of Arts, potentially (I haven't looked it up) on the taxpayer's dime.

What is art, then? The Mona Lisa. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Stuart's portrait of Washington which is replicated on the dollar bill. Things like that. Fuzzy orange brown squares and rectangles? I'm going to argue no.

In short, art isn't necessarily what the self proclaimed artist or supposed art experts say it is. The kind of standard applies across the board too. If you think Zinn's Bad History is good history simply because Howard Zinn purports to be an historian, then you ought to rethink the subject. You should certainly rethink Zinn.

Art is what art is, according to rational standards of beauty, talent, and whatever other reasonable standards apply to analyzing art, exactly as history is what it is according to rational standards of history no matter what any given person, even an historian, might say it is. Look beyond the experts, question them, challenge them. If they can't give you good answers, doubt them. Never let them rest on their own word.

Culture and the Poor and the Socialists

Some things make you laugh out loud the instant you read or hear them. One simply can't help the eruption of rowdy and uncontrolled guffaws which come from wherever deep inside of you. We had that experience this morning when reading online about protestors railing against the Detroit Institute of Arts possibly having to sell off some of its memorabilia in order to satisfy Detroit's debts. The protest was organized by the Socialist Equality Party.

You laughing uproariously too, aren't you? We're still giggling as we type this. We may be wrong, yes, we'll admit, as we never really delved that far into socialist theology (yes, we use the word theology purposely). But the idea that socialism would actually care about art objects which have generally been created for the haves rather than the have nots of society, well, if these aren't folks simply playing to what they perceive to be the grandstand solely for the sake of generating publicity for themselves...you see the joke.

Culture is a social right, they say. Yes, we're quite sure that younger workers on ramen noodle diets think deeply of culture as they are trying to move up the economic ladder. We're sure the poor single mother trying to nurse her sick child feels that trip to the DIA would cure him. Quite frankly, if socialists think at all about art and culture then Vonnegut is likely more right than the Socialist Equality Party. Bring on Harrison Bergeron!

We're not mocking struggling young people or single parents or anyone whom socialism has traditionally sought to defend. We're just pointing out that they almost certainly care more about their immediate needs far more than about bourgeois banalities such as artifacts stored away from the public anyway (as are the bulk of the DIA's collections). Yet even beyond that, even before we consider as a body politic whether we should maintain large collections of what other people call art (for much of what passes for art these days is not), to see socialists defending what has generally been seen as an upper class fancy is, well...

Sorry, we couldn't finish that last paragraph because we're snickering again.

Government has no Business in the Art Business

Why not sell the paintings and statues and various artifacts in the Detroit Institute of Arts in order to help the city out of bankruptcy? Isn't that what any individual would be expected to d in a similar situation?

Please don't bother about their cultural value to Detroit. How many Detroiters actually go to the DIA? How many folks are attracted to the city because of it? Not very many, we would wager.

Don't bother about the importance of art, either. Art is a special interest, when you get down to it. It is fair to question whether the government at any level has any business in the art industry.

The artistic and cultural snobs will tell us that we're neanderthals. Whatever; we don't stick our hands in their pockets when we go to baseball games. Why do they have the right to stick their hands in ours when it comes to symphonies and museums? Because it's art?

Sell 'em. Sell every last artifact which the DIA owns. Then sell the land on which the museum itself sits to the next Whole Foods.That would serve the city of Detroit and the community better than a plethora of items few people actually bother to see.

Macomb Rejects DIA Support

Macomb County Commissioners have effectively voted against a proposal which would have county residents vote on a tax to help fund the Detroit Institute of Arts. The vote was a tie, but ties don't get things done. It is seen as a blow to the DIA, which wanted to create an endowment payed for by voters of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties. Wayne County has approved an 'arts authority' to manage a millage question to be put before her voters. Oakland County has yet to act.

We have nothing against the Detroit Institute of Arts, nor against art in general. But it strikes us that any overt government support of the arts, whatever they may be, is, at the least, a tricky issue. This next question is going to rankle the supporters of the arts, again, whatever they may be, but it is fair to ask why taxpayers ought to support whatever the patrons of the arts call art. Especially when you consider the amount of taxpayer cash given out over the years for 'art' of dubious value, it doesn't seem right to ask for support for the 'arts' without asking what art is.

It also calls to mind the age old problem inherent in taxes: all that it takes for me to force you to fund my pet project is to have fifty percent plus one of the voters (or, more rightly, fifty percent plus one of those who bother to vote) decide to make you help me pay for it. Not that such is always wrong: some things need to be paid for out of the public coffers no matter what any given individual may think, and many necessary things would not get done without the democratic process to some degree making citizens ante up no matter what.

Yet it strikes us that there is a significant difference between, say, asking others to pay taxes for police and fire protection and asking them to pay for an art museum. Think what you will, it is better to have cops on the street than paintings on the the wall, even very good and exceptional paintings. Beyond that, consider what a given individual might think of as art compared to what an 'arts authority' may think art. That 'authority' may believe art what is in fact tripe. We've all seen things called art which we know are not: avant garde paintings and sculptures and displays which are little more than pretentious, or worse.

Further, we don't even see where it is wise of the arts community to want government of any kind at any level determining what art is or can be. A simple look at what government has determined about other things demonstrates readily what it might do to art. The City of Detroit cannot run its basic services; can it really defend or define good art?

This is not to say that we are against art, though we will be charged with that. But it is to say that some things should be left to the private sector, to the market and the forces which drive it. Art is one of them.

We cannot imagine any serious, rational person who does not appreciate Michaelangelo or Renoir. We do not see many serious, rational people in government or on arts authorities.