So I know I said "the defense rests" above, but I wanted to take one more shot at explaining my objections to modern art.
First, let me apologize for being a techno-peasant: despite having posted here since the Johnson administration (and I'm talking Andrew Johnson), I don't know how to post a picture. The work of "art" I'm going to talk about here is "Untitled" (USA Today) by Felix Gonzales-Torres. You can see it here:
http://pictify.saatchigallery.com/30...usa-today-1990 and on pages 36-37 of the aforementioned
Why Your Five-Year-Old Could Not have Done That: Modern Art Explained by Susie Hodge.
The work in question is a pile of candy. Trust me, that's what it is: just a pile of candy. Ms. Hodge explains that it is "candy, individually wrapped in red, silver and blue cellophane," which she also tells us "are the colors of the US flag." Ms. Hodge is British, so we'll give her a pass on only getting two or the three flag colors correct, which is a lot more than she gets correct about the work.
Ms. Hodge explains that Gonzalez-Torres "surreptitiously and incisively . . invoked viewers . . . to contemplate the past, present, and future." He does this, apparently, because the work is "variable and constantly altering as people take the candy." Further: "Variable and constantly altering as people take the candy, the pile is depleted, implying deterioration before death; the instability and change are an allegory for the world."
In a word: hogwash. It's a pile of candy. There is no allegory for anything. Just because Mr. Gonzalez-Torres and Ms. Hodge think it is doesn't make it so. I understand that in modern art, it is up to viewers, more than the "artists," to decide what a work is about. But any nonsense that I or Ms. Hodge or anyone else claims to see in a pile of candy about deterioration or instability is exactly that: nonsense. Mr. Gonzalez-Torres and Ms. Hodege claim that "Gonzalez-Torres was expressing his feelings about gay rights and AIDs, as well as highlighting political volatility."
He was not. He may have said he was, but the pile of candy was not doing so. I might just as well say I was doing the same thing when I ate a cherry from the plateful I had in my kitchen tonight.
In general, the more four-syllable words or more in an explanation for a work of art, the less veracity (joke intended) there is in it. In Ms. Hodge's summary of "Untitled" (USA Today)" she uses "configuations," "nonconfrontational," "considerations," "surreptitiously," "incisively," "deterioration, " "instability," "allegory," and "equilibrium." All in one paragraph.
Ms. Hodge sums up her analysis of the work by saying that the viewers of the candy "all have the opportunity to become involved, to make changes and, ultimately, to affect the equilibrium of society." I have no idea what she means by "the equilibrium of society." But I am sure the pile of candy has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Now the defense truly does rest. My apology if I have violated the spirit of The Lounge.