Why is that ART?
If you love museums, as I do, I have a book to add to your reading list: "The Quality Instinct, Seeing Art Through a Museum Director's Eye" by Maxwell L. Anderson. I found this to be a fascinating read.
I admit it; when I'm in a museum and I see a work that I find incomprehensible, unappealing, or even just confusingly simple, I wonder, why is that art? And why is it good enough to be in a museum? That's exactly the question that this book addresses, while providing an insider's view into the activities and objectives of a museum director.
Maxwell Anderson is a celebrated art historian who for thirty years was director of museums in Atlanta, Toronto, Indianapolis, New York, and Dallas, most notably as the director of the Whitney Museum in New York for 15 years. He curated countless exhibitions, procured innumerable works to enrich museum collections, and occasionally identified unattributed treasures that rocked the art world.
Anderson is clear about what he looks for in artwork, "If a work of art does its job properly – by inspiring us, for example, or stirring, provoking, or engaging us – then it has a claim to being measured by how well it does one or more of these things."
What makes a work of art?
Specifically, Anderson defines quality in an artwork as "the extent to which a work of art is:
Original in its approach
Crafted with technical skill
Confident in its theme
Coherent in its composition
Memorable for the viewer
I found this definition so inspiring I have it tacked to the wall in my studio. Because that is exactly what I want my work to be.
I found this concept useful because it explains why the seemingly simple paintings of Mark Rothko, for instance, which are blocks with variation of a hue are actually "magical and subtle" with a "quiet, resonant power" that make them masterpieces. It was Rothko's originality as well as his skillful execution that made his work a breakthrough in Abstract Expressionism.
Impressionistic Art
Above: Bar at the Folles-Bergère, Edouard Manet, 1882 and Blond Bather, Auguste Renoir.
The French Impressionists were startlingly original in their time and are now admired worldwide. And museum curators know that Impressionist exhibits are very popular and profitable for museums.
But in considering the quality of Impressionistic art, Anderson points out that some Impressionistic painters were distinctly lacking in technical skills. For instance he viewed Renoir as "the poster child of the overrated artist." while he waxes poetic about Manet's work "The Bar at the Follies-Bergère" as a masterpiece.
I agree. I too was never an admirer of Renoir’s; I find his paintings saccharine his subjects vacuous and boneless. However, Manet is one of my favorite Impressionists for his his storytelling and his powerful paintings of everyday life.
A new perspective on an old art
The author speaks of the gamble that museum directors take when displaying work that isn't considered part of mainstream art. "This is a risky business, and one beset by doubters for every quadrant: critics, curators, collectors and dealers."
A controversial exhibit at the Houston Museum of Fine Art in 2001 featured the quilts of the women of Gee's Bend, Texas, at a time when quilt making was considered a craft, not an art form. Ultimately, the exhibit was a major success and it changed the perception of the artistic value of quilts, an art form originating in the most humble of materials.
At right: Housetop, Gees Bend Quilt, by Irene Williams, 1965
What makes art original?
Sculptor George Segal (1924-2000) used unique materials in his work. The piece at right, "Walk, Don't Walk", 1976 is made of plaster casts of real people, cement, metal, and a lit crosswalk sign. I would ask: why is this art? Isn't it cheating to make plaster casts of people instead of sculpting them from stone?
Anderson says that the casting from life is in part what makes Segal's work original. He says that the artist was responsible for "transform[ing] our thinking about the direct appropriation of forms from life, so integral to the character of what we today call Pop Art."
Sculptor George Segal (1924-2000) used unique materials in his work. The piece at right, "Walk, Don't Walk", 1976 is made of plaster casts of real people, cement, metal, and a lit crosswalk sign. I would ask: why is this art? Isn't it cheating to make plaster casts of people instead of sculpting them from stone?
Anderson says that the casting from life is in part what makes Segal's work original. He says that the artist was responsible for "transform[ing] our thinking about the direct appropriation of forms from life, so integral to the character of what we today call Pop Art."
Common artistic qualities
Throughout the book Anderson analyzes seemingly disparate works of art such as the Nairobi mask, Bernini bust, and Mendelssohn observatory shown above, and explains why they all meet his five criteria of artistic quality.
In addition learning more about artistic quality, I was intrigued by Anderson's many tales of the inner workings of top-tier museums and the challenges they face.
I found that reading this book on an iPad had distinct advantages; I could easily look up less familiar vocabulary words (inchohate, plebiscite, adduced, invidious, evanescent, etc.), and also zoom in on the illustrations to study them carefully.
I highly recommend "The Quality Instinct", a fascinating read. Enjoy!