Friday, June 15, 2007


I am frequently a critic of the pervasive voyeurism that has insinuated itself to the point of saturation within our culture. I have unmasked contempt for reality TV and similar concepts.

I am also skeptical of many models of abstract or conceptual art, because I feel it often places the burden of art too heavily on the observer. That is to say, while some people may find a minimalist representation of triangles (I know it is an unfortunate stereotype of modern art, but my point doesn't turn on the accuracy of the example) to be truly beautiful, I don't see why we should credit its creator with having accomplished something praiseworthy. It is only the eye of the beholder that appreciates such a work; I don't believe it has inherent or objective value. Nor do I understand, if you are capable of appreciating an aesthetic so simple, why you would choose to view paint on canvas (or sculpture, or whatever). There are far better examples of minimalistic beauty available in nature, and it is certainly more interesting to consider how and why they came to be.

Strange then that I would find this so strangely compelling. It is perhaps the authentic organicity, as in nature, that distinguishes these from the pedestrian "art of the everyday" that I often deride. Not all of them are brilliant, but many are amazing. I am shocked but not surprised by the things that people need to express. And how willingly they do so with anonymity.

Here's one I liked. It's dark.