If you want to digress to pejorative attacks on another person's taste, I am more than willing to take off the gloves. However, I think what you seek to do by initiating this thread is to perform a service (correct me if I am wrong).
Different folks are motivated by different things in art. It is clear that neither of us cares for what we call decorative art. I define decorative art as that stuff that lacks soul and substance and has the depth of chrome.
I see no soul nor substance in the artists you favor. I see no challenge nor growth in the art they create. This does not make them, or their art bad, just different than what I prefer.
Mori presents a brilliant statement on the influence of so-called western culture on an Asian society, but it is a comment on society, the facile choice de jour of artists who cannot find their own voice.
Tomasselli is a master of labor intensive compulsive manic focus, but one learns nothing about the artist's vision by looking at the art, and nothing of oneself by basking in its beauty.
Halley is an excellent writer whose shallow paintings exist solely as evidence of his boring philosophy. The art does nothing to enhance the human experience, but you're right, it does "look important" on one's wall, if what one is after is to impress the neighbors.
How have you grown personally from the art you have lived with?
Does anything you own resonate with your heart?
I agree that the purchase of art should be a secure expenditure.
However, if one is motivated by looking for financial gain from art, one is buying art with the market's taste in mind and the whole beneficial experience of living with art is perverted.
I just asked Mark di Suvero if he thought his art is decorative. He said no.
Did you want me to ask Sam Gilliam, Ed Moses or Ken Price? |
