The man who reinvented how we view art; bad taste at the Tate and going low

In The Lowdown on Lowbrow: West Coast Pop Art, I learnt that this  art genre has been struggling to gain its own identity for a quite a while now. As one of its pioneers, Robert Williams states, it has no “manifesto” because nobody has been able or willing to string together an easily explainable

By Robert Williams (2000)

narrative. Lowbrow is influenced by what is “hip” at any particular time and it has its roots firmly planted in the antiwar, anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and probably has as its most visible moment that now very famous concert at Woodstock in 1969.

Its icons are cartoon characters from pop culture magazines like Mad and its models are skinny girls standing in front of customized cars. It’s a genre that cries out for acceptance at the same time as it seeks to remain a niche. Its artists are those kids who went to Disneyland and refused to leave.

From artattack.com

Like all art, Lowbrow wants to tell a story. But which story? The story of rebellion against the establishment? Or is it the story of the danger of the materialism that runs rampart in the society? Or maybe Lowbrow just wants to convince us that it is a push back against “highbrow” art that often condemns it for its lack of

supposed seriousness. Whatever it is, Lowbrow has a certain endurance that is hard to stop and
almost impossible to ignore.

Unlike other genres, one of the biggest strengths of Lowbrow is its inclusiveness and appeal to all artists, especially females, which is something highbrow art doesn’t seem to do willingly. Female artists, like the Pop Tarts, have made it accessible to all and its refusal to be pinned down is also a big draw for the quasi-marginalized of the society i.e. those with a rebellious bent who want to revolt against the rules without being bothered with the hard work that comes with this endeavor.

But at the end of the day, I think the most powerful aspect of this type of art is its flexibility, its inextricable links to pop culture and whatever street fashion of the day. For this reason it will never grow old because it has a ready pool of artists and audiences who will always pick up where the generation before it left off.

BBC Culture show: Tate Modern is 10! Is a documentary that focus on the London Tate Gallery of Modern Art which features artwork by modern artists making modern art. The Tate, probably one of the largest indoor galleries in the world, is exclusively dedicated to contemporary art some of which is as bizarre as can be. For example, in the video I saw a pile of bricks arranged on the floor that is supposed to be art. Whether it is or not, I don’t know. All I know is that someone sure thinks it is.

Bricks
From the Independent

“Look again, think again”, the operating motto of the gallery, is surely a testament to the confusion I felt while watching the documentary. If the original aim of the Tate Museum was to draw attention to contemporary art and modern artists as a counterpunch to the more glitzy and snobby galleries that would normally not exhibit their kind of art, then I boldly say it has failed to do so.  The Tate has become a place for jet setters and B-listers to see and be seen, a place where some people (especially those who would normally not be caught admiring art like this) go to get a feel for what regular folk are like. There was enough champagne in the video to drown a small elephant, which, I suppose, says it all.

Anselm Kiefer's Palm Sunday at Tate Modern
Photo from the Guardian

I started watching this series with the expectation that I would see something different, something unique. I didn’t. This so-called contemporary gallery for contemporary art is nothing more than an attempt by the establishment to pretend that they are interested in bringing art to the common people. The Tate experience would be dissatisfying, for me at least, if I ever visited the museum. There is something I find rather disconcerting about it. I can’t explain it but I know I can feel it. But the word “zoo” keeps repeating itself over and over again in my mind.

In An Acquiring Mind: Philippe de Montebello and The Metropolitan, the point is made very early on that a “museum is never finished. A museum should never allow itself to become a museum of itself.” This is the kind of thinking that has made the Met arguably one of the most important and most popular museums in the world. De Montebello’s 31 year tenure as the director of this iconic center of world culture is brought out in a celebration of his art acquiring prowess.

Philip de Montebello
Photo by Paul Hosefros/The New York Times

His keen eye for what moves us, what makes us pause and stare and what touches us is a true gift and he put this talent to great use that influenced how art was displayed, arranged and acquired. In the video he says objectivity in his line of work is impossible to achieve, the best one can do is try. The range of the art in the museum is mindboggling and sometimes even startling. His ability to recognize aesthetic appeal, even in artists and works that were previously unknown, is perhaps one of his greatest strengths. Even works that were never originally meant to be art he looked at and his approval turned those “non-arts” into art that would eventually end up at the Met.

                                                                  Thatlou.com

As director, de Montebello oversaw an eclectic group of experts, each battling for a share of the acquisition and restoration budget. What I found remarkable about him was his willingness to listen to his subordinates and his firmness in decision making. His ability to convince private art collectors to bequeath their art to the Met is truly invaluable. Whether this is something that goes on in all museums, I don’t know. But what I do know, and what I admire the most, is de Montebello’s love of art for the sake of art. For him the Met is sacred ground, a temple whose most important role is to capture time and keep it captured for the world. And for 31 years, de Montebello was the High Priest of that temple and today the Met is as important to art as the ancient ruins in Greek and the Pyramids in Egypt are to history.

2. Do the videos relate to the creation of your Art Exhibition project? If yes, explain how. If no, explain why not.

The videos, especially the documentary on the Met, better prepared me to get into a curator’s mindset. I learnt something about the process that one must go through in selecting art and deciding whether it should be included in an exhibit. The video on the Tate showed me what not to do, which is to create pretentious spaces that rely mostly on “buzz” than on anything else.

3. What is your opinion of the films? Do they add depth to understanding of the art concepts you practiced while creating your curation project?

The videos present different points of view on how to make an exhibit and this in itself creates great depth in how I went about the project. My curation project was definitely improved by watching the videos.