Just watched the Documentary titled The Mona Lisa Curse by famous art critic Robert Hughes. In the documentary Hughes laments how art has become appreciated more for it's monetary value rather than it's beauty. The appreciation for aesthetics has been dumped out the window and instead has been replaced with a price tag and a commodity. It was a bit depressing because I could understand where he was coming from but it even more depressed me because it documented the frustration of an old man unable to keep up with the change of times.
In the first part of the documentary we see a man called Bob Scull who starts the trend of regarding art as assets. He buys art cheaply from really famous renowned artists and then rips them off by auctioning them off for thousands more than for what he bought them for. And I think If I were an artist jipped by this jerk I would be honestly pissed off too and probably go kick this mother fucker's ass. Would probably land me in Jail btw. But if I view it from the mindset of Bob Scull I think he's a brilliant business man. From the business side of it you think wow, this guy is a genius.
Later Hughes goes about interviewing famous art collectors and museum director's for their opinion of how the handling of art has changed. One thing that stood out to me was how the art collector's, actual investor moguls by day, were criticized for their sense in art. Hughes thought it was so outrageous that one of the collectors thought that his Warhol work was so much better than the Mona Lisa. At first I thought also, what the fuck was this guy talking about, but then I thought about it again and right after I heard the phrase "in my opinion" my own thoughts about it started to form. So, in my opinion, it just comes to the individual's reaction of the art.
When I first saw the Mona Lisa in person I wasn't exactly impressed, but I appreciated the art for what it meant to me. The way the lips were frozen in an enticing mysterious smile. The mystery of the woman that was sitting in front of Da Vinci at that time. Those are the things that I personally took with me. So I think that art is a very personal thing. To Hughes art had to make you think about life and portray an important message to you. If it didn't do that than he thought it wasn't really art. So isn't that just his personal reaction to art? And I praise his beautiful reaction because so many people could never get that much from looking at a piece of art. It shows that he is truly loves art. But now that the information age has set in and we can view any art we'd like from the comforts of our home, any person could look at art and react to it. Whether it's a slight emotional change from happy to excited or from complacent to thoughtful, then I think that it's good enough. As long as art creates some kind of reaction to the viewer it will always considered to be art. It doesn't have to be life changing, and it doesn't have to tell you a long intricate story. So I don't think that Hughes should be dictating how we should react to art because it's very individual and personal. I agree that art should not be measured by it's price tag but I don't agree that people should be telling us how to think about art. They should be inspiring us to appreciate art. They should be showing different ways in which we can experience art. At the end of the documentary I felt like Hughes thought art was somehow dying. But I think it's changing just as it always has been. It's the reflection of society at present. And I think that even more people now, not only the art expert and art connoisseur, having more access to art is wonderful.
