Art or crap?
Check out this art! I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago this weekend, and it was pretty good. There were things I did not "get." Take the art of Richard Tuttle for instance. He is an "artist's artist," meaning most of us don't "get it." His art involves a lot of studies of lines. The art to the left is a white wall with some nails in it, and some florist wire strung between the lines. Nice. I walked by about 10 of these before I noticed there was stuff in the walls. That is part of the art, it's small scale and fragility. Some of his pieces were good, but most (like the plywood shapes on a wall, or the white cloth octagon on an off-white wall) just went over my head. Perhaps he is just laughing all the way to the bank. I would like someone to go with me who can expain to me why I should appreciate some of the pieces.Art to me should evoke some sort of response, and a lot of these did, I just think it was not the response the artist intended. He did invoke a response, I did question what art is, and perhaps that is what he was going for. He did use everyday materials, which I like, but the guy can't even draw a straight line! They were wobbly, and that is supposed to make me feel connected to him? I can draw a wobbly line, too, without even trying. I guess I assume an artist needs to possess "skill" along with "talent" to practice his trade. Tuttle has obviously changed that assumption. He may be smart, insightful, and esoteric, but I would not ask him to sketch me (unless I look like a crooked line).












