TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE ART

If you read my blog, you know I have low-brow tastes. Because if I ran the world, the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD would have won an Academy Award. And the girl who played BARBARA would own an Oscar.

The painting in my living room, the one directly above my rocker-recliner (the place of honor) I bought for $20. in 2002.

I attended what is called, "An Affordable Art Sale" over at a big hotel. A back conference room was filled with original artworks. All probably painted by a crew of Chinese workers in an art sweatshop.

I found this painting behind several others. Someone probably hid it there while they looked around. I knew immediately it was mine, and grabbed it up!

It reminded me of artwork by Thomas Kinkade. It possessed that same ethereal glimpse-of-heaven style. The nature scene is early dusk. A full moon beams over a mountain peak as it gazes down upon a secluded lake in the woods. It has a certain magical air. The picture is unsigned and has no title. I gave it one, "A Sacred Place."

Anything by Thomas Kinkade has always struck me with a sense of awe. The avant garde crowd of the art world have always criticized his work. Usually labeling it "too happy." -- Well what's wrong with that! I've always thought art was supposed to stir the emotions. Isn't happiness an emotion!

Back in the olden mid-1990's, I was a docent in an art museum. -- OK, it was volunteer work forced by the court! But that's another story.

Some of the garbage on display in those exhibits (by renowned artists) was laughable! The only emotion they evoked was ridicule.
To paraphrase the late Andy Rooney, "Anyone who doesn't understand cutting edge art because it all looks like trash to them, actually does understand it." I'm inclined to agree.

I've read that Norman Rockwell and even Armand Hammer were also considered mere commercial artists. Because a painting is never supposed to look too much like a photograph. It's supposed to be more of an artist's concept. Why? It actually requires skill to make a painting good enough to resemble a photo!

Also I remember the juried art shows at the museum. The ugliest or most outrageous piece of crap almost always won! I actually told the Executive Director that the judges had lousy taste, or they must be blind.. She politely explained, those pieces of art were created not for beauty, but to make people think.

I get that, except they don't really. After the initial shock, laughter, and disbelief, the beholder is left cold. You are not forcing people to think by turning them off. My entrancing piece of sweatshop art is far more thought provoking.

I admire art that has a special je ne sais quoi. Something I can love and cherish. The type that takes visible skill to create. And not something a monkey with a paintbrush could produce!

Once, I brought my father into the museum for a tour. "You should have been artist, Dianne," he declared. -- I reminded him I have no talent. "Look around," he replied, "neither do any of these people!"

Apparently art doesn't have to be good to be considered genius.