My Kid Could Do That
When criticizing, it’s wrong to use the term “my kid could do that” in dismissing a work of art. It exposes the ignorance of the reviewer. Obviously, anyone that would look at something and say that is misguided.
A while back, I attended a couple of openings for shows of mid-career painters in a respectable first-tier gallery. The artists, while not stars, have impressive resumes. Based on who was there, and the prices of the work, you could say they have successful practices.
I found their stuff underwhelming. The work of the first artist, at least was a little interesting. There was a certain amount of expression of movement through line that showed some thought. However the level of thought displayed, was more like that of a stream-of-conscious doodle on the margin of a book one might do in the middle of a boring telephone conversation. It was the start of something, but was being displayed as finished work. It was pleasing to look at and it smelled nice.
The work of the second artist was less inspiring. The stuff was slapped together mixed media. It displayed a lack of meaning. The collage parts were ugly wallpaper patterns that were partially obscured by thin layers of pigment. The painted parts were awkward slaps of paint from oversized brushes. There was nothing to show that this artist had any vision or anything interesting to say. Since it was very derivative of Basquiat mixed with pattern painting. All I learned was that this person paid attention in art history class and has put together some stuff that is somewhat familiar looking.
I’m generally positive and hate to trash someone’s work but the term “my kid could do that,” seems somewhat appropriate here. There is a certain amount of laziness to the work. Each piece was a start, but due to a seemingly lack of effort, and exploration, the paintings look to me like the products of short attention spans, like that of a kid.
There’s a lot of art like this. It’s child-like in its execution and doesn’t express much. One could read anything in to it. It sits in the background of the opening like the tinkering of a jazz trio in the corner of a cocktail party. It’s really just decoration for a lifestyle. It’s not meant to challenge or inspire. It’s price, however gives it a certain exclusivity that shows that the buyer and the seller have attained a status above most people. This gives the impression of higher thought.
A lot of popular contemporary art is like this. It’s childish, largely unfinished and doesn’t say much. Though, maybe that’s the point. Any meaning can be attached to it. The dealer can write a few paragraphs that can position the work as something of incredible value. Since the artist spends little effort on it, the artist has more time to work on their writings and theories that can be presented as knowledge. The lack of substance in the work means that it will enhance the decor of the collector without scaring anybody, yet in some way it shows sophistication.
In any case, art like this shows a lack of attention to the work and more to the marketing and distribution. “My kid could do that” may describe the work itself, but the art is a part of a bigger whole. That lack of understanding of how the art got on the wall of the gallery is what exposes the commenter as misguided. However, the statement still holds true for the work by itself.
Category: Articles, Essays | Tags: career, craft, deskilling, duchampian, quality, skill 5 comments »
December 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I remember being irked by this type of statement when uttered by museum goers…even having some words with them. Funny thing is that recently I have thought the same thing while looking at some work. Instead of a gallery wall it should be on a refrigerator.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I think that in many cases, it is like showing art on a refirgerator. As part of the “deskilling” of art (as Mark Staff Brandl put it), I think no one ever told these artists that they suck, just like a parent posting Junior’s work on the fridge. All they ever got was unearned praise and no one challenges that.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Children’s art, if you look at a lot of it, is remarkably homogeneous; the distortions are the same as are the color choices. When I was in school, there was definitely an idealization of this , as well as, self-taught art and that of the insane. I always found it intellectually dishonest to pretend after years of training and practice to pretend to be primitive; there’s no going back and the results are usually stylized in a way that’s off-putting. It’s one thing to move beyond influence, quite another to act as if they never were.
The kid from that statement would never waste his time slathering gallons of paint on, probably, prestretched canvas to impress his schoolmates, the way that they teach ya to do in art school…
January 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Sh!t! I know the feeling — very difficult situation, no longer the rebellion of a Picasso or a Klee, now the dumbing down and deskilling has us all sounding Philistine. But usually nowadays its true. Little kids COULD do that stuff and better.
January 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I’m glad that I didn’t go to a traditional art school. Though there seemed to be a push toward abstraction (at least as an eventual career goal), attention was given to a strong foundation in drawing and painting. Hell, when I started there was even an art course in human anatomy.
I don’t think that this deskilling has taken place in any other art form, so why has it become so important in visual art?
If this happened in the music world, we’d all be listening to the Shags. Even in some jazz, where there is a deliberate destruction of more traditional melody making, it is done with purpose by musicians that are skilled in the use of their instruments.