For Better or for Worse?

This week’s discussion zeroed in on museums as the cultural treasures of the world.  These institutions are art bearers and like everything else, they have changed over time.  But the question at hand is, have they changed for the better or for the worse?

The art world controls how art gets seen and where it gets seen.  This art market directs the evolution of contemporary art of the world and every aspect connected to it.  Some issues we discussed were cultural exchanges.  Some countries such as Greece, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries have been asking institutions such as Yale and British institutions for their art back.  It is important to make negotiations while exchanging such pieces.  Otherwise, it becomes an issue of copyright and ownership.

According to the video, “The Curse of the Mona Lisa,” museums, art and the public have all changed.  Art critic Bob Hughes walks us through these changes.  Hughes has a tremendous amount of knowledge on art history.  He uses good judgment and his well liked by many artists. 

Bob Hughes showed us this crystal skull piece that is worth millions of dollars.  WHAT?!  Millions?!  That's crazy!  I mean I knew art could get expensive but I had no idea it could get THAT crazy.  He points out the shift in attention from appreciation of the art to money.  Now everything is about owners and buyers and how much each piece is worth.  We see art fairs such as The Armory Show, where thousands of people come to purchase pieces of art.  Are they really appreciating the art or is it simply about the exchange for money?  This type of art is definitely not the art Hughes fell in love with in the sixties.

Hughes mentions an artist to us by the name of Robert Rauschenberg.  This artist used silkscreen to create paintings on a panoramic point of view.  When pop artists began to focus on media subjects for art, Rauschenberg knew the way.  He was the original genius behind the silkscreen.  He also talks about a friend of his, Jim, who works with speed and amplitude in art.  I thought these pieces were particularly cool because of the vibrancy and the fact that there was a lot going on because of the speed in them.  They were really expressive and stood out to me as a viewer.  However, I did not really like Rauschenberg’s pieces.  While I agree that he is talented, I did not find them to be as interesting or captivating as Jim’s pieces.  But hey, I’m no art critic now am I?

-Kristen