With the possible exception of “fiduciary responsibility,” what term, what idea, what concept, what theoretical and theological construct is more fuzzy and angst-ridden than “art?”
What is art? Is it art? The question is wrenching, not only for the vegetarians in some liberal arts program, but for investors and real estate managers and urban planners and, of course, the cops.
There it is, in Portland, Maine, even as we speak. Fancy Somerville-based architect Shaunta Gillies-Smith, with Harvard credentials and an impeccable reputation, is in danger of seeing her “Tracing the Fore” steel thing, approximating the Fore River, labeled an eyesore and a nightmare to maintain.
But is it “art?” Well, it was commissioned by the Portland Public Art Commission, so there is a case to be made for it being “art,” in a metallic, structural, sort of way. But the local retailers consider it more a haven for weeds – an ugly addition to the business district.
The art critics might look to Hartford, Conn., for support. The city is still unsure, after 34 years, of the wisdom of encouraging famous sculptor Carl Andre to plop a stone sculpture of sorts (“The Rocks”) in downtown Hartford, with the financial support of the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving and the National Endowment for the Arts.
At the time, a Republican candidate for mayor called the “minimalist” staging “another slap in the face for the poor and elderly.” A neighboring apartment dweller called it a “public nuisance.” But, is it art?
In Boston, artists (or “vandals,” depending on your point of view) have been at war with the powers-that-be over who and what may decorate public space with “art” or “graffiti.” An interesting question: If you don’t get paid for it, and someone displays it, is it art? That’s how it works at Banker & Tradesman for columnists.
Paying For Painting
Questions about art and who gets to decide the appropriate label are complicated by the popularity of “public art” – art funded by government, with money that the rest of us might have chosen to spend on baseball cards or malt liquor.
The Libertarian voices in conservative public policy think tanks have long questioned the merits of using state subsidy for art, not only because the “few” make art decisions for the “many,” but also because government then gains an ugly power to censor, to order up thongs on naked Greeks who probably looked better without extra adornment.
As Bruce Edward Walker of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy put it last year: “Defining art and its many purposes and intended audiences is tricky.”
In some cases, the public art has such symbolic value that it defies honest or objective art criticism, once the public dollars are spent. Marc Chagall’s “Peace” stained glass window at the United Nations building honors the remarkable Dag Hammarskjold. Does anyone want to quarrel with the craftsmanship – or why Marc didn’t stick to his painting?
The nation is still somewhat bewildered by the “Running Fence” that the artist Christo constructed in 1973 – a 24.5- mile stretch of nylon meandering through Marin and Sonoma counties in California. It generated headlines while it stood…but was it art?
The National Endowment for the Arts, which has gone through all manner of political angst about who and what shall be blessed with government subsidy, has settled down of late into “safe” contributions to non-controversial institutions – a strategy Professor Marjorie Garber of Harvard calls, “to do no harm.”
While private collectors and corporate and museum curators can exercise patience and accept the time that elapses before modernist experimentation becomes popular, the Great Unwashed often have the Warhols and Rauschenbergs (let alone, the Christ-in-urine thing) foisted on them in a public and often jarring way, with little warning or explanation.
The Ford Foundation has launched a $100 million “Diverse Art Spaces Initiative” across the country – money that could be better spent on the care and feeding of impoverished newspaper columnists.
On the other hand, many of you have labeled my columns “art.” As I mentioned, “what is art” is complicated, but I’m going to have a little chat with the Ford Foundation and see what I can do.
