This is so beautiful. I was lucky enough to see A Portrait of Ross in 2003 or 04 when it came to Philadelphia. I remembered that it was a memorial and that you could eat the candy but I didn't remember the specifics. I'm so glad to have read this because the piece always stuck out in my mind and these details make it all the more of a special memory. I shared this with my friend who was with me when I saw it. She never forgot it either
Nice post. I'm wondering if you knew John Paoletti at Wesleyan. I was an art history major there - I was fortunate to learn about conceptual art (and develop an appreciation for it) from him. And then there was also David Schorr, another genius.
I am happy to see someone who is not a modern/ contemporary visual artist defending contemporary visual arts. The trick with an Ellsworth Kelly or a piece such as this is exactly what you said - let go of the fear of being pretentious and just be with the piece. Be human. Don't try to assign it a value as in, this is worth being in this space or it is not. Don't think, I could do that! Just listen to your body, your mind, dare I say your heart, and experience how it makes you feel. If you think you could paint the same blue rectangle that is on the wall that is great but unimportant. Let the blue rectangle consume you and then get back to me. A Portrait of Ross sounds like a beautiful experience. I hope to see it some day.
I've softened my own anti-'modern'-art feelings a lot. I can't remember the name of the painting – it's in some museum in NYC – but it's a grid of mostly monochrome colors; black and gray (I think). I was very indirectly familiar with it before I saw it, or at least aware of similar works, but I found the actual painting, at least when I was standing in front of it, much more interesting – there's all kinds of details to be noticed that close! It reminds me of John Cage's 4'33 in that way – a neat conceptual stunt.
I've also noticed that 'hate' towards modern/conceptual art is pretty welcome! A lot of the artists that produce this kind of work seem to _want_ it. I can imagine that 'the hate of the bourgeois' (or something) is _validating_ in a way that dishonest fawning isn't. I also imagine that these artists most fear _indifference_ from their audience.
And the whole 'meta-process' is interesting too: announce that the work (which, in your example, would include the whole setup and maintenance of the work when it's on exhibition) is a metaphor for something and BAM – you're done; 'Discuss!'. I like analyzing art logic so it's a bit of nerd-sniping! It reminds me of mathematics too (the stuff that mathematicians do): construct some mapping (metaphor) from your imagination, and then just follow its own logic as far as it remains interesting.
But I don't think pre-modern art can be accurately described as NOT "helping us to understand the darkest and hardest parts of life". People having been making art to do that forever! I'm not sure 'modern' art is really any better at that either; not for most people anyways. But life isn't _just_ 'dark' and 'hard' – it's also bright and energizing (or can be). It's not some anti-art or anti-intellectual sentiment that compels people to resist what they perceive to be a _lop-sided_ obsession with representing only the bad and evil and sad. People enjoy art for many many reasons!
And yet still – any particular work, particularly new or recent ones, is likely to be 'crap'. Sturgeon's Law applies to all creative endeavors pretty equally.
(I'd probably be critical of the piece you're highlighting here – but then that's part of the fun!)
I admit, when I go to the MOMA, I suffer from having an initial, visceral, subconscious reaction that says to me, "I can do that. If I can do that, it can't really be art." I tend to blow past the obvious answer to that internal comment. If I can do it, why don't I? The simple answer upon reflection is that even in simplicity, sometimes because of its simplicity, is meaning - and art. And my reaction, really, is not so much that I can or can't do it. It's that I didn't think of it first. It's all hindsight. Thank you Freddie for this post. I haven't seen A Portrait of Ross. If I do I promise to take a piece of candy, enjoy it, and reflect.
Freddie’s essay was great. But I’m going to push back on your comment a little.
I don’t think people are dismissive only because “they could do that”. I think they’re dismissive because they believe “they WOULD do that”.
I never saw this exhibit, so I can’t comment on it. But I can imagine someone being annoyed that the artist’s boyfriend, rather than the viewer’s grandmother, is celebrated in this way. An important spot at fancy exhibition halls, essays written about it 20 years later, money and fame for the artist, and it is both something that the viewer feels that they could and would have created if they were given a commission.
There’s a not entirely unjustified belief that art should show both skill and imagination that modern art pieces are lacking, and that the only difference between the viewer and the artist is a fortune spent on art school and the right contacts. That this is another front in a class war.
To be clear: this isn’t my feeling. I mostly agree with Freddie’s essay. But I can see where people are coming from.
Always worthwhile to remember the crisis of representation in the late 19th century and how it contributed to the art of the 20th: with the advent of photography, the importance of skill just seemed to diminish substantially. Cameras became cheap and ubiquitous very quickly, and the ability to render intimately detailed realist subjects suddenly had less salience. So artists turned conceptual for a lot of reasons (the horror of the world wars, for one) but at least partially because being a skilled draftsman stopped seeming as impressive.
I used to attend SAIC around 2009-2010. I'd also regularly go visit this piece. It would often break my heart and yet give me so much joy as well. There was this added layer where my going to school there destroyed my finances so I wasn't able to afford groceries regularly. I'd be eating that candy with this hunger made it all much more poignant and ironic.
There is an affecting passage about this art installation in Carmen Maria Machado's recent experimental memoir, In the Dream House, wherein her abusive then-girlfriend loses her shit after Machado eats a piece of candy from it.
I really liked this one, Freddie. I find that I frequently enjoy reading about art as a way to help myself see it better, and I really do love your take, here. Thanks for this.
This is so beautiful. I was lucky enough to see A Portrait of Ross in 2003 or 04 when it came to Philadelphia. I remembered that it was a memorial and that you could eat the candy but I didn't remember the specifics. I'm so glad to have read this because the piece always stuck out in my mind and these details make it all the more of a special memory. I shared this with my friend who was with me when I saw it. She never forgot it either
Nice post. I'm wondering if you knew John Paoletti at Wesleyan. I was an art history major there - I was fortunate to learn about conceptual art (and develop an appreciation for it) from him. And then there was also David Schorr, another genius.
I am happy to see someone who is not a modern/ contemporary visual artist defending contemporary visual arts. The trick with an Ellsworth Kelly or a piece such as this is exactly what you said - let go of the fear of being pretentious and just be with the piece. Be human. Don't try to assign it a value as in, this is worth being in this space or it is not. Don't think, I could do that! Just listen to your body, your mind, dare I say your heart, and experience how it makes you feel. If you think you could paint the same blue rectangle that is on the wall that is great but unimportant. Let the blue rectangle consume you and then get back to me. A Portrait of Ross sounds like a beautiful experience. I hope to see it some day.
This was beautiful, and even brave. Thank you.
I've softened my own anti-'modern'-art feelings a lot. I can't remember the name of the painting – it's in some museum in NYC – but it's a grid of mostly monochrome colors; black and gray (I think). I was very indirectly familiar with it before I saw it, or at least aware of similar works, but I found the actual painting, at least when I was standing in front of it, much more interesting – there's all kinds of details to be noticed that close! It reminds me of John Cage's 4'33 in that way – a neat conceptual stunt.
I've also noticed that 'hate' towards modern/conceptual art is pretty welcome! A lot of the artists that produce this kind of work seem to _want_ it. I can imagine that 'the hate of the bourgeois' (or something) is _validating_ in a way that dishonest fawning isn't. I also imagine that these artists most fear _indifference_ from their audience.
And the whole 'meta-process' is interesting too: announce that the work (which, in your example, would include the whole setup and maintenance of the work when it's on exhibition) is a metaphor for something and BAM – you're done; 'Discuss!'. I like analyzing art logic so it's a bit of nerd-sniping! It reminds me of mathematics too (the stuff that mathematicians do): construct some mapping (metaphor) from your imagination, and then just follow its own logic as far as it remains interesting.
But I don't think pre-modern art can be accurately described as NOT "helping us to understand the darkest and hardest parts of life". People having been making art to do that forever! I'm not sure 'modern' art is really any better at that either; not for most people anyways. But life isn't _just_ 'dark' and 'hard' – it's also bright and energizing (or can be). It's not some anti-art or anti-intellectual sentiment that compels people to resist what they perceive to be a _lop-sided_ obsession with representing only the bad and evil and sad. People enjoy art for many many reasons!
And yet still – any particular work, particularly new or recent ones, is likely to be 'crap'. Sturgeon's Law applies to all creative endeavors pretty equally.
(I'd probably be critical of the piece you're highlighting here – but then that's part of the fun!)
This was a wonderful piece. Thought provoking and beautifully written. Well done.
Yeah he's definitely one of my favorite artists
I admit, when I go to the MOMA, I suffer from having an initial, visceral, subconscious reaction that says to me, "I can do that. If I can do that, it can't really be art." I tend to blow past the obvious answer to that internal comment. If I can do it, why don't I? The simple answer upon reflection is that even in simplicity, sometimes because of its simplicity, is meaning - and art. And my reaction, really, is not so much that I can or can't do it. It's that I didn't think of it first. It's all hindsight. Thank you Freddie for this post. I haven't seen A Portrait of Ross. If I do I promise to take a piece of candy, enjoy it, and reflect.
Freddie’s essay was great. But I’m going to push back on your comment a little.
I don’t think people are dismissive only because “they could do that”. I think they’re dismissive because they believe “they WOULD do that”.
I never saw this exhibit, so I can’t comment on it. But I can imagine someone being annoyed that the artist’s boyfriend, rather than the viewer’s grandmother, is celebrated in this way. An important spot at fancy exhibition halls, essays written about it 20 years later, money and fame for the artist, and it is both something that the viewer feels that they could and would have created if they were given a commission.
There’s a not entirely unjustified belief that art should show both skill and imagination that modern art pieces are lacking, and that the only difference between the viewer and the artist is a fortune spent on art school and the right contacts. That this is another front in a class war.
To be clear: this isn’t my feeling. I mostly agree with Freddie’s essay. But I can see where people are coming from.
Always worthwhile to remember the crisis of representation in the late 19th century and how it contributed to the art of the 20th: with the advent of photography, the importance of skill just seemed to diminish substantially. Cameras became cheap and ubiquitous very quickly, and the ability to render intimately detailed realist subjects suddenly had less salience. So artists turned conceptual for a lot of reasons (the horror of the world wars, for one) but at least partially because being a skilled draftsman stopped seeming as impressive.
I used to attend SAIC around 2009-2010. I'd also regularly go visit this piece. It would often break my heart and yet give me so much joy as well. There was this added layer where my going to school there destroyed my finances so I wasn't able to afford groceries regularly. I'd be eating that candy with this hunger made it all much more poignant and ironic.
There is an affecting passage about this art installation in Carmen Maria Machado's recent experimental memoir, In the Dream House, wherein her abusive then-girlfriend loses her shit after Machado eats a piece of candy from it.
I really liked this one, Freddie. I find that I frequently enjoy reading about art as a way to help myself see it better, and I really do love your take, here. Thanks for this.