michelle marder kamhi's
WHO SAYS THAT'S ART?
reviewed by
LYDIA SCHRUFER
____________________________________________
A while
ago I received a book that made me, by stages, angry, contrary,
furious, dismissive but, most importantly, thoughtful. The book,
by Michelle Marder Kamhi, is entitled Who Says That's Art?
A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. The cover features
a detail of a Jackson Pollack painting, Marcel Duchamp's urinal
and Andy Warhol Campbell's soup can as examples of non art and
the premise of the book that we, the viewers of art, have been
duped into thinking that contemporary art is fine art.
The
book is well written, scrupulously researched and attempts to
convince the reader that most contemporary art is, in fact,
pseudo art. It is, according to Ms. Kamhi, an avant garde spurious
invention. 
The
introduction states, " If art can be anything, then it
is nothing" and opens the discussion with Ellsworth Kelly
as an example of pseudo art. It is, in my opinion, an unfortunate
choice since Kelly is an icon of contemporary art; the beauty
and precision of his work is beautifully sublime. Ellsworth
Kelly' work is all about simplicity and under statement. Ms.
Kamhi insists that the viewer can't really be moved by non representational
art but I vehemently disagree: Just because a painting doesn't
have an object doesn't mean that it has no subject.
According
to Ms Kamhi we've all been duped by art critics and the whole
art machine into accepting that most art being produced today
is a “. . . sick joke or momentary aberration” which
seems to suggest that contemporary non representational artists
are spending months and years making art with the sole purpose
of making money and pulling the wool over our eyes. Although
I do agree that some artists are making art that is difficult
and even, in many cases, off-putting I do not agree in the conspiracy
theory. Most artists are passionate and engaged in their work.
Much contemporary art is about visual metaphor, challenging
perception, exploring shape, colour and space. It is not about
creating the illusion of a three dimensional world. Serious
artists push the boundaries and therefore, often, incite derision
and discussion. Artists react to their environment and their
times. Good art cannot be a constant reiteration of what has
already been said. We appreciate the work of the old masters
but their weltanschauung (world view) is no longer indicative
of our reality. A changing world is not conducive to the pastoral
masterpieces of the past because relevant art reacts and engages
and makes us think about the here and now.
Ms.Kamhi
posits that non representational art cannot inspire emotional
reaction; again, I disagree. When I am in front of, for example,
a work by Rothko I'm enveloped in an environment of vibrating
colour. The work is not telling a story or representing allegory
so therefore, according to Ms. Kamhi, contemporary non representational
art can only function as decoration and not as a vehicle of
meaning. 
I
would invite the viewer into an installation by Anselm Kiefer
and remain unmoved by the spiritual content of his textures
and scale of the work.
Non
representational art is not a new concept. Artists have been
exploring different methods since humans scratched their first
images onto cave walls. Every artistic endeavour that challenged
the status quo has been denigrated as an aberration when it
first appeared. Much of the art that we now revere was initially
laughed at and considered a fleeting trend. The fact is that
art is always filtered through the time in which it is created.
Artists react to changing times. A world experiencing war and
destruction is not going to produce biblical, Renaissance allegory
because it isn't relevant to the times.
Twentieth
century art requires a different language and means of representation
than nineteenth century art in order to accurately, convincingly
reflect the zeitgeist. Art after 1945 would not cohere with
a bucolic landscape painting because it would strike the eye
as false. An angry expressionistic portrait by Willem DeKooning
is not, perhaps, as easy to look at as a neo classical portrait
by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres but it is no less relevant;
in fact, I would say the neoclassical portrait is considerably
more 'decorative' and less emotional. Experimentation is and
always has been of paramount importance to living, evolving
art.
I do
agree with Ms. Kamhi that many gifted representational artists
are being ignored by the art establishment but that doesn't
mean that the great majority of cutting edge artists are any
less valuable. Ms. Kamhi includes Matisse, Duchamp, Picasso
et al in her list of 'pseudo' artists. She dismisses all isms
since neoclassism. “The Armory Show of 1913 was a travesty
that sounded the death knell for traditional art." Ms.
Kamhi also decries public funding for non traditional art which
suggests that according to her only 'traditional' and safe non
confrontational should be encouraged. Ms. Kamhi states, "My
primary aim in this book has been to discredit the pseudo art
that now dominates the international artworld." The most
recent artist that Ms. Kamhi allows into the pantheon of real
artists is Paul Gaugin, who's work she loves, even though he
was considered a fauve (wild beast) during his lifetime.
If
one agrees with the premises of this book one must assume that
all the major and minor art collectors and donors and art endowments,
Guggenheim, Rockefeller etc. have been swindled into believing
and endorsing abstract art and should instead
be concentrating their efforts on pretty representational paintings
and sculptures. One may not care for Damian Hurst's pickled
shark or Tracy Emin's installations but experimentation is an
integral part of art evolution and certainly encourages dialogue
and discussion as does this book.
For
a quick introduction to understanding and appreciating abstract
art go to YouTube and find “The Rules of Abstraction”
narrated by Mathew Collings; a 6-part overview. That and the
endless links thereafter are a great beginning to educating
ourselves about contemporary art and why it developed.
![Canadian Tire Repair Scam [2211 boul Roland-Therrien, Longueuil] = documents-proofs](../2010_v9_n5/images/mapleleaf.jpg)
