WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

One way to prop up shit is to put it in the same context as good work. If garbage is associated with excellence, the quality rubs off on the junk. For some reason, it doesn’t work the other way around. This is a technique used by curators and writers alike. It’s all good.

WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

It can be interesting, inspiring and enriching to see the sketches, trials and, the mock-ups of an artist. The rough and awkward sketches on kraft or scrap paper can tell a lot of how an artist came to painting that finished masterpiece. Automobile designer Dick Teague sketched the Pacer on a barf bag while on a business flight. Many great things start out as an idea sketched or outlined on a bar napkin. I love looking at rough stages of anything.

Unfortunately, too much art stops here. Today, paintings are rough (and sometimes crappy) sketches on construction paper, wrinkled from the paper that unevenly shrinks as the paint dries. They are then push-pinned to the gallery wall as a finished piece. Installations are made of unfinished scrap wood, slapped together. Sculpture is cut out of cardboard boxes and taped together with duct tape. A lot of art ends up looking like some sort of day camp project. The “bar napkin” has become the finished piece.

For some reason, the art world really responds to work that seems to be slapped together as opposed to fully executed…something that looks polished. Though a piece that is quickly put-together shows an immediate connection to the idea, it just doesn’t seem finished…something is missing.

The word “craft” has connotations of “arts and craft”…hobbyists in a park district field house making pots. If you ask me, dashed off quick sketches on torn construction paper makes me think of “craft.” Would it be so bad to take those drawings to the next level? Probably, because today it would be received as out-dated and old fashioned. I think it’s time for a new trend.

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.