Permission For Expression

Why are we such tight asses about art?

You'll pardon the vernacular - tight ass is a very technical term in art criticism I assure you.

Is it fear of being wrong?

And if so, how is it that some artists *seem* to have absolutely NO fear of being wrong?

Who gets permission to make art and how do they acquire that permission?

This weekend I cruised through a handful of galleries in Chelsea. The experience was pleasant enough; walking through big air conditioned open spaces plunked down in the middle of Manhattan is blissful actually. If you've ever lived through a summer in New York City you know why. I'll give you a hint - it has little to do with the art hanging from the walls in those big, cool, open spaces. Perhaps, the artists hanging their work are in on the secret as well.

I was truly amazed at the price tags dangling from drawings and paintings that quite frankly lacked the inspiration of a good spring time pollen infused sneeze.

That's not to say I didn't like them - some of them where fun to look at and interest piquing. But I am a pedestrian in the art world. I can't imagine the response of an art world devotee.

But that takes us back the questions I posed earlier .... who gets permission, from whom and how to make art? And why, do some of us accept and celebrate q-tips glued to large pieces of industrial plastic as art and others turn up our noses, shake our heads and walk away with squished up cheeks?

Boring questions actually - real snoooooozers - silly movies are made to address them - films akin to a late adolescent afterschool special. It's more pedestrian stuff.

But does anyone have any good answers to these banal questions?

And if so, could you please provide them, in writing at the entrance of every gallery in Manhattan. It would help eliminate a lot of confusion.

But perhaps that would ruin all of that art world mystique.

Okay so from a less bitter and snide point of view - no one gives permission to an artist. One can try, but it's really got to emanate from within and it's got to resonate at a high enough frequency that the artist can cut through art world and societal standards, critiques and criticisms maybe even his or her own internal demons and critics and pave the way for creation.

Wrong or right - who knows - and who cares really?

In the end it makes little difference.

Where a difference is made is in made or not - was the artist able to create and actualize or was he so mired down by negativity, doubt and fear that he was paralyzed?

Maybe - just maybe - art is really a reflection of a human being's ability to evolve beyond that sort of paralysis and the works themselves are just a byproduct. Some of the byproducts happen to be made by hands that are technically developed and endowed - capable of the intricate, complex. While others are the fruits of the less physically evolved. I don't think those Chelsea price tags are a reflection of this theory and I'm quite confident that history would show the same.

The monetary value of art is a reflection of the politics, geography, culture and egos of every human involved in the process of showing, buying and selling art. An art in and of itself; it bares little relation to the pieces of canvas to which it's assigned.

So lighten up or tighten up?

Hang the q-tip adorned plastic from your walls or chuck it into the recycling bin?

Expect more or enjoy what's there?

Taking on the tone of an afterschool special, I'd advise that it'd probably be in one's best interest to tell the art world to go screw and explore the nature of one's own aesthetic leanings and predispositions.