Art Critics
Kyle Thompson
Issue date: 5/1/06 Section: Opinion
There is beauty in simplicity. The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak," said artist Hans Hofmann (1880-1966). It seems though, that the modern art world disagrees with this via their overanalyzing antics.
I attended the free screening of artist Mathew Barney's new short film "De Lama Lamina" at UCLA.
The show seemed to start before the actual movie. People waiting so anxiously for a revolution, they dressed, acted, and looked in such a way to invoke it sooner surrounded me. There was an artistic atmosphere, to say the least.
"De Lama Lamina" was a film with no dialogue, attempting to test our understanding through sight and association. I'm not sure I did very well in understanding it, but that seemed true for everyone. In short I watched a mythical Brazilian deity masturbate against a tractor. This same tractor supported the effigy of Julia "Butterfly" Hill, the environmentalist who crawled around in a tree like some kind of spider. All of this happening in the middle of Brazil's orgiastically fantastic carnival. The people in the carnival seemed as lost from reality as the audience, but I didn't know that till after the movie.
Two commentators attempted to shed light on the darkness of "De Lama Lamina" after it ended. They seemed familiar with Mathew's symbolic way of expressing himself. The Barney rookies were definitely helped by the information.
To assist us even more, the commentators opened it up for questions. It didn't take long before empty space was filled with the skin and bones of art majors. I could sense an urgent fire in their eyes.
But to my surprise the questions and comments seemed to be harder to understand than the movie itself. It was as if they were verbally applying for the most prestigious art school and the more complex or ambiguous there questions were, the better there chances of admittance.
Art is supposed to make one think, supposed to be analyzed. But I'm suspicious that these over analytical rapists were just picking random words from the thesaurus and speaking them with confidence. It was like watching a bunch of pretentious art neophytes playing an intense game of pogs, and just when you think the slammer couldn't get any bigger, bam! Another heavily buried and completely random question to scatter all hope of sense.
Why pull something from nothing. Perhaps pride is the motive. Perhaps they weren't even asking the questions for the answers, but trying to woo the commentators into taking them as personal assistants. I can just imagine these people walking out with there chest high, strutting around like "oh man that question was prodigious! I'll definitely get noticed by Bella at the art expo next week. Oh, and when Professor Aisberg finds out about this he'll definetly give me an A.
All I have to say is maybe Hans has a point, that you don't have to be an over analyzing dunce to be cool in the art world. YOU GO HANS!
I attended the free screening of artist Mathew Barney's new short film "De Lama Lamina" at UCLA.
The show seemed to start before the actual movie. People waiting so anxiously for a revolution, they dressed, acted, and looked in such a way to invoke it sooner surrounded me. There was an artistic atmosphere, to say the least.
"De Lama Lamina" was a film with no dialogue, attempting to test our understanding through sight and association. I'm not sure I did very well in understanding it, but that seemed true for everyone. In short I watched a mythical Brazilian deity masturbate against a tractor. This same tractor supported the effigy of Julia "Butterfly" Hill, the environmentalist who crawled around in a tree like some kind of spider. All of this happening in the middle of Brazil's orgiastically fantastic carnival. The people in the carnival seemed as lost from reality as the audience, but I didn't know that till after the movie.
Two commentators attempted to shed light on the darkness of "De Lama Lamina" after it ended. They seemed familiar with Mathew's symbolic way of expressing himself. The Barney rookies were definitely helped by the information.
To assist us even more, the commentators opened it up for questions. It didn't take long before empty space was filled with the skin and bones of art majors. I could sense an urgent fire in their eyes.
But to my surprise the questions and comments seemed to be harder to understand than the movie itself. It was as if they were verbally applying for the most prestigious art school and the more complex or ambiguous there questions were, the better there chances of admittance.
Art is supposed to make one think, supposed to be analyzed. But I'm suspicious that these over analytical rapists were just picking random words from the thesaurus and speaking them with confidence. It was like watching a bunch of pretentious art neophytes playing an intense game of pogs, and just when you think the slammer couldn't get any bigger, bam! Another heavily buried and completely random question to scatter all hope of sense.
Why pull something from nothing. Perhaps pride is the motive. Perhaps they weren't even asking the questions for the answers, but trying to woo the commentators into taking them as personal assistants. I can just imagine these people walking out with there chest high, strutting around like "oh man that question was prodigious! I'll definitely get noticed by Bella at the art expo next week. Oh, and when Professor Aisberg finds out about this he'll definetly give me an A.
All I have to say is maybe Hans has a point, that you don't have to be an over analyzing dunce to be cool in the art world. YOU GO HANS!