Last night, well, yesterday morning I had an extensive conversation with a friend of mine about art. This conversation centred around how little art exists in galleries that is actually worth the trip.

I’ve been to a number of art galleries and can honestly say that I cannot think of more than a couple of things I’ve seen that have stuck in my memory at all, let alone any that got any sort of reaction from me.

Hell, one piece I remember simply because it reminds me of a dream I once had:The Lake of Albano, 1790

It’s The Lake of Albano (1790) by Joseph Wright of Derby, if you’re curious.

Wandering around that art gallery back in 2002 or so that was the only piece that stood out. In more recent years I’ve wandered around places and had even less of a reaction to things.

I’m told that art is supposed to make one feel something but generally the only art I find that does that is online. The things presented in galleries, unless they’re extremely famous old masters, might as well be anonymous.

To give an example of what made me feel I present this:

qujsf

Click through to a page that is wonderful. If you’ve not played the Portal series of games it might not have as much effect, admittedly.

Another piece would be this illustration of Rapture, the city under the waves from BioShock:

1959

Then there’s this work, parodying McNaughton’s “One Nation Under God”. I find this version significantly less horrifying:mcnaughton-fine-art-one-nation-under-god-parody-jesus-cthulhu-blood-monsters

Something a little more physical:octopus

Impossible things and places:

Rahmos9-1200x745

I’m not even sure what to comment on this one:Fantasy_Spirit_of_fire_009610_

The point being that art that speaks to me most definitely exist. It doesn’t need to be from popular culture I recognise, although that’s not a bad thing, but it needs to be relatable in some way.

That’s hardly a new thought in and of itself, of course. This old Corries song springs to mind:

Money is spent on things that have no connection with many of us. Who is it really for?

When I think about it creativity as a whole is not treated in a way I’m particularly comfortable with. Certainly we revere the concept of it but in practice artists are referred to pejoratively for the most part – “artsy fartsy type”, “Starving artist”, and so forth. These terms focus on the lack of tangible value these things have in a culture that measures everything by currency rather than something else.

I’m not suggesting that money should never matter simply that the way the system exists at the moment it’s no wonder it’s not really a viable career path.

What if 3D scanning technology developed further and one was able to have an equivalent of a Steam library devoted to art that could experienced through 3D goggles or similar?

Instead of the experience only being available to those with the ability to get to a gallery anyone, anywhere could virtually walk through and experience things. Generally speaking art work isn’t allowed to be touched and so it’s not as if tangibility is a major stumbling block.

This would even mean any communal space could host an exhibition without needing more than a few bits of techy hardware. How’s that for accessibility?

Taking into account the amount of sales one could make it seems totally viable to me that artists could actually make a living.

Instead we have to put up with endless “art” created primarily for sensationalist media coverage, or at least publicised by the same. I personally have no interest in seeing the latest idiotic piece of pretentious crap that’s being praised and bemoaned in the popular press. I’d rather look at artistic renditions of what post-apocalyptic Russia and America might look like:

Apicalipsys_02-Apicalipsys_04-Apicalipsys_13-Apicalipsys_16-Apicalipsys_19-

0 responses to "Mmmmmm, relatable."

Leave a Reply