We are told that art should be accessible to all, that children should be regularly exposed to it because it broadens the mind and sharpens the eye, that adults should go regularly to the museum because it's a good way to enrich their cultural knowledge and to please their keen desire for beauty. Art seems to be the ultimate source of guiltless pleasure, a rare experience that allies education and distraction. The omnipresence of this discourse so similar to the one the NHS adopts to extol the virtues of five daily servings of fruit and vegetable has me wondering: what if art is bad for us?
Consider the following promotional text:
"FEEL CROSS AS A BEAR? That's natural when little annoyances pile up. But the psychological fact is: pleasure helps your disposition. That's why everyday pleasures, like art for instance, are important. If you're an art lover, you're wise to choose the museum that gives you the most pleasure."
Are you planning a little visit to the museum in order to unwind over the weekend? What appears like an - albeit clumsy - advertising for a museum is in fact... a tobacco advertising dating from the 50's: "FEEL CROSS AS A BEAR? That's natural when little annoyances pile up. But the psychological fact is: pleasure helps your disposition. That's why everyday pleasures, like smoking for instance, are important. If you're a smoker, you're wise to choose the cigarette that gives you the most pleasure."
Replace the words "smoking" and "cigarette" with "art" and "museum" and voilà! Art will give you pleasure, consequently putting in a more clement disposition, which of course is bound to make your life and that of your entourage a lot better. If 50 years ago we believed that cigarettes were beneficial to us because, by allowing us pleasure, they stabilized our mood, what we believe of art now could be disproved just as radically within a few decades. Art is generally thought of as beautiful, pleasing, spiritual, but it can also be ugly, aggressive and dirty. It is no mystery that art can make you mad, annoy you, drive you crazy and even make you physically ill. Plato warned us many centuries ago about the "dangers of art".
With this blog, I intend to take on the role of devil's advocate in order to question things we tend to take for granted, cultural "common sense" more specifically related to the art world. I hope you will enjoy reading my modest upheavals and feel compelled to reply, whether you agree or not.
Martine Rouleau
For more extolling of the virtues of cigarettes from a time of blissful ignorance, have a look at http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/index.html
Image: It's a Psychological Fact Pleasure Helps your Disposition (1948), Sir Eduardo Paolozzi (1924-2005), Collage mounted on cardsupport: 362 x 244 mmon paper, unique. © The Estate of Eduardo Paolozzi, 2002.
1 comment:
I think the analogy being made here is both pertinent and interesting but in my opinion can only apply to people who find their lives defined by art in one way or another. No matter how regularly people who only have the slightest interest in art are compelled to visit museums, they'll never be able to fully experience the emotional impact of art as do those privileged enough to find their senses greeted and soul touched whenever they come across a meaningful piece of work. They are the ones who can be driven to the brink of madness in their quest for spiritual esctasy, not neophytes who at best will naively value the artist's craftmanship and at worst will simply get angry at his work because of their incapacity to either embrace it or understand it. Art, if envisionned as a physical expression of Truth and the mirror of one's soul, must cater to all human emotions and encompass both beauty and sadness.
Post a Comment