Crazy Loco

So, is this art?

We went to the Bakehouse Art Complex a few weeks ago for their monthly open house.  For those who haven't been, this is truly a great place.  Housed in the former National Bread Company building, it provides affordable studio space to emerging and mid-career artist.  The exhibit in the Audrey Love Gallery was of works of professors at a local art college.  Among them was  Brian Nogues Reference Work 1.5, pictured.  It so astounded me, I had to photograph it.

Of the many works in the gallery, I liked some and didn't like others, but none provoked the level of discourse that Nogues' work did.  Jackie described it as "Crazy Loco."  The idea that someone would put an ordinary bubble level in a matte, frame it and call it "art" shocked my senses.  That he should demand $950 for it, well, I thought took some nerve.  Still, I snapped the photo and walked on.  [click below to read more]



Apparently the piece stayed with Jackie because the next day she was still discussing it.  She was indignant that this would qualify as "art".  Our conversation veered toward conceptual art, a genre she hates.  I said that Nogues had to have a concept, an idea behind the piece.  I wasn't defending the piece so much as defending conceptual art.  While there's a lot of it I don't like, I dislike more the idea of dismissing a whole genre of art, especially one focused on ideas, even if much of the work is inscrutable.  As I mined this topic more and more, it dawned on me:  Nogues' piece was a commentary on how most people don't really care about art itself, they just want the piece to hang straight and look good on a wall.  As commentary, this was incredibly subtle.

Anyone who's ever generated any work of art for sale will come across someone who sort of likes it or feels he/she should like it but wants it in a different color, or size, or composition so that it'll better match the living room or whatever.  Nogues is saying that people don't care what's in the frame as long as it's hung straight on the wall -- or maybe not.

Maybe Nogues is saying that the art world will foist anything on the public and the public will take it because their "betters" have deemed it "art".  They'll take what they're given and make sure to hang it straight. Why ask why? Drink Bud Dry. Just do it.  The real question, though, is Who is he mocking?  Is he mocking the "art establishment" that would deem it "art"?  Is he mocking the buyers of "art"?  Is he really mocking them at all?  Maybe he's not, maybe it's just commentary?  Is there a difference?  Do we care if there is?

Is it art?

Really, is this art?  I don't know, but I'm still thinking of it.  Can't really recall anything else I saw that night.