VivAlchimia: July 2011

A few days after our arrival, I was taking our Italian greyhounds, Mao and Lilliput, for a walk on the beach when I saw a man kneeling in the sand, staring at something. As I got closer, I realized it was Jack Nicholson. He had a twenty-four-hour beard, and I wondered how long he had been without sleep. In the palm of his hand he was holding an orange that had been washed up by the ocean and was stained with tar. It looked like a globe of the world. He placed a finger on one of the tar stains.

"There's Europe," he said.

He pointed to another stain.

"There's Asia and there's Africa."

Something seemed to be bothering him.

"The American continent isn't there," he said.

He thought for a minute and said, "If the American continent doesn't exist, that means we don't exist either. If we don't exist, what are we doing here?"

"I've arrived from Paris," I replied. "And I didn't notice that the United States did not exist."

"It's jet lag," he explained.

After a long silence he said, "The state of nonexistence can enable one to understand many things. For example, that the world is an orange covered with tar stains...even Einstein didn't foresee that."

He looked at me with a provocative, disarming smile that was also a little diabolical. He seemed to be making fun of himself or others - probably of himself and others. - Roger Vadim

I found this excerpt from Roger Vadim's book incredibly amusing! If you are curious about French cinema and lives of the 1960's celebrities, you should most definitely read Vadim's autobiography "Bardot Deneuve Fonda. My Life with the Three Most Beautiful Women in the World." I got this book as a gift for my 60's themed birthday party and although not a serious or eye-opening read, it was a perfect book for the summer - light, funny and charming!

Since the beginning of twentieth century there has been an ongoing debate pertaining to the distinction of high and low culture and the significance of its merging in art. Marcel Duchamp’s upturned urinal named Fountain in 1917, Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans in 1962 and Damien Hirst’s For the Love of God in 2007 all show a particular trend in the last ninety years, a quest to test the ground of permissible in the terms of art and what can sell. But profitability and provocation are not the only experiments - our vision of creativity and its validation is the main focus. I watched, in awe, as acclaimed art aficionado Robert Hughes critically and skillfully “executed” Alberto Mugrabi with his questions on what “exactly” does Mugrabi like about the work of the contemporary artists in his own and his father’s extensive collection (The Mona Lisa Curse Documentary). A much older Hughes’ witty questions that found no convincing answers in Mugrabi’s weak inarticulate defense of Andy Warhol highlight a significant shift in perspective of art value, that from the position of an art critic and that of the market. In another scene in the documentary, Robert Hughes visits the Met in New York and glancing at Hirst’s infamous work The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living names its shark “the world’s most overrated marine organism.” He then goes on to declare Hirst’s work to be “a comedy, but a kind of tacky comedy too, that bears a lot upon the way that we think about art and how it is made.” In my mind, his definition of Hirst’s work can relate to a certain flair that has characterized the new blend of low and high culture, a tendency to experiment, shock and amuse the audience by interacting with their sense of artistic propriety. New hybrid of low and high art became a game, a farce that broke many rules and opened new doors to creative expression.

After this brief introduction, I want to present a work that I have created. Fate (featured above), an acrylic 36’x48’ painting I made in 2009 is a good example of high and low culture merging together as one creative hybrid. I also consider this work an experiment of many genres: surrealist, abstract and overall pop art that cannot be clearly defined in my mind. Even while creating Fate, it transcended many mutations starting out as a classical outline of the nude traditionally placed in the center of the painting and gradually transforming into a shadow of a jester surrounded by an abstract notion of the chessboard with pawns and knights pieces freely floating around. In my mind the painting signified a somewhat Shakespearean notion of life as “a stage where every man must play a part” (The Merchant of Venice), an active player yet also a pawn in the gambit of fate.

How do we distinguish between high art and low art? Do I call Fate a paradigm of popular culture, its color scheme loosely resembling that of Lichtenstein’s cartoon strips? Should I call it high art in its longing to become something deeper through conceptual symbolism? Art is meant to convey meaning but what kind of meaning? Is there a difference between what is considered art by elite and by popular culture? What is fine art and what is kitsch? What was once considered good art was defined by historic institutions such as the French Academie des Beaux Arts whose chair members ranked art works by four main subject themes in order of importance: Biblical/historical subjects, Portraiture, Landscapes, Still life. It took many risk takers in the faces of private art dealers and artists to courageously step away from restrictions of tradition and breathe fresh air in what was increasingly becoming a stagnant institution. Charles Baudelaire in his essay The Painter of Modern Life claims that modernity is the “transient, the fleeting, the contingent; it is one half of art.” The other necessary half of high art deals with eternal and immovable. There are two halves – creativity and tradition but a modern artist must follow his impressions, be obedient to them and get to the core of what makes his present time unique and true.

Art is transitory and if we go along with the teachings and art created in the past that we as society inherited, we will continue creating works that are not relative to the progress and values of current reality. Art must change with the times to be relevant and embrace the search for meaning that is coherent with its times. What was considered “bad” art in 1876 is now considered a priceless masterpiece of impressionist movement. It seems that whenever a creative metamorphosis enters a rather conservative art world, it is met with antagonism and snickering. However, as it gets private recognition and gains momentum it eventually goes from tasteless and tacky to innovative and full of conceptual meaning. Where once the meaning and quality of artwork laid in its high artistic skill, intricate technique and relevant thematic importance, now the world of art is more provocative. However, just because something does not obey the rules of the past masters does it become irrelevant, tasteless and distinctively aimed at non-elite? The audience now is less shocked by anything yet craves constant stimulation. It does not only go for art, it is evident in popular culture: video games are getting increasingly violent, television shows promote more sexual content and interviews seek scandal and drama. I believe that where once the audience sought beauty and historical relevance in art, now it seeks shock value, it demands freshness from the artist, whispering, “surprise me” in his ear. And surprise and shock keeps coming in the form of diamond-encrusted skulls (Damien Hirst) and steel-dipped bunnies (Jeff Koons).

We must create without recourse to the old certainties and teaching methods since art is subjective and every high art has a possibility of entering the reality of low and mass produced culture and, likewise, a low culture momentous wonder may one day be regarded as masterpiece and sought after by cultural elite. I am sure that Leonardo Da Vinci would turn in his grave knowing how many cheap scanned replicas of Mona Lisa float around the study rooms and bedrooms of the so-called “masses.” After all even high art could be easily transformed into low popular art by the means of modern technology and artistic simulations. Thus, I found its distinction irrelevant and somewhat a rhetorical question. After all, it is all about what value you assign to the work you truly love and admire. To some it is read as a quantitative analysis while to others it is priceless in nature. Art and its interpretations stay subjective and open to debate, which reflects in prices and popularity of particular artist and his style.

Art works referenced in my essay: