Happy Saturday Eve! A discussion, a wondering, a confusion for a Saturday evening (with pictures!)
Yesterday I went to a wonderful art festival on the Milwaukee lakefront: The Lakefront Festival of the Arts. Part of the ticket price was entry to the Milwaukee Art Museum:
So hubby and I spend a good deal of time walking through the museum. They had art from every era. There was this 1800-something bounty hanging my husband enjoyed:
A Dale Chihuly:
We wandered through the contemporary section, and I found myself having a little harder time understanding what I was looking at.
There was this neat hanging rock display:
And a modernish painting I kind of got a vibe from:But then I came across two paintings that I just didn’t get. They both had their own wall, so there were no distractions. And my favorite question mark:
And I wonder — why are these last two considered art?
I know I know…beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. The artist is making some sort of a statement. Or non-statement. I did not retain the artists’ names, but I am sure they are impressive in their own right. After all, they have a spot on a wall in one of the most popular art museums around.
So this Saturday evening, I was wondering if you could help me out. Maybe you are an artist that paints similar paintings. Maybe your friend or relative is an artist that really “gets” modern, contemporary art.
Maybe I am just out of my league. But I know I ask what thousands of others often ask. Why is this considered art? I love paintings. Not just the Masters, but I am enjoying the modern approach as well. But what talent is there is painting a canvas all one color? What am I missing?
It’s not that I don’t appreciate an avant garde approach to art. But walking through the art festival, I saw plenty of other works that would have made much more sense up on a museum wall.
If you have an answer I’d sure like to hear it.
Ahhh….something else I need to learn….