Ode to bad art
Disclaimer: your opinion of art is probably different than mine. All photos are of actual works of art presented at 48 hours Neukoelln.
Berlin is really into festivals of all kinds. Lately, it seems like I go to one every weekend, and while I like street festivals a lot, I'm getting tired of the fact that in Berlin, they're all very similar. I see the same vendors at them, selling the same greasy, overpriced street food or imitation designer sunglasses or hand crafted junk, with little to no relation to whatever the point of the festival is (multicultural pride, gay pride, neighborhood pride, etc.). So when I read about 48 hours in Neukoelln, I thought it would be a nice change of pace. The idea of this particular event is, apparently, to be really artsy. I think the pamphlet says something like "celebrating the neighborhood's creativity and diversity" or something like that. The event is essentially lots of galeries, cafes, and artists working together with local businesses to entertain/enlighten/demand the attention of the masses for the weekend through art installations in public places, free theater, extended gallery hours, and public shuttles to get the masses from one thing to the next. This all took place in the northern part of Neukoelln, so I didn't have to go to far for my free art. It'd been kind of a lonely and uninspired weekend, so I set out to explore the art and be inspired and enjoy the company of strangers.In my optimism/desperation, it didn't occur to me that there's often a reason that free art is free (usually not the spirit of charity), as well as a reason that I prefer the company of loved ones to that of strangers, and that inspiration is not necessarily a reasonable expectation for art. So I went to several galleries, explored a couple of installation pieces, and saw a short piece of experimental (multimedia) theater before giving up and coming home.
It is obviously impossible for us to agree on a purpose for or definition of art - it's a personal thing. For me, it's got something to do with provoking thought, whether or not I could do it, and whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing. I'll get back to you with the exact formula later. This event made me think about all that, but it also reminded me of the importance of the audience - art is that which is believed to be art. It is crucial, therefore, to remember also what a gullible thing an audience is; they tend to believe what they are told. If an artist tapes plastic cups to a disco lamp (an actual piece in one of the galleries) and calls it art with enough conviction, the audience very well might believe it. What I realized tonight is that if only I had the conviction to take myself and my work seriously, I too, could be an artist. I could spray paint things silver and lean them against a wall. I could tie some garbage to a rotating fan and put it in an empty white room. I could tie a bunch of water wings to poles. I could even dance around with a paper-mache skull to a recording of myself reading a story with some trippy psychedelic 70s rock on loop in the background. With enough conviction, I think, I could probably even get people to pay for it. Of course, deadpanning could be substituted for conviction in some cases, but I'm not that good.
Now, I have to admit: this kind of consideration (to say nothing of the debates going on as I left the paper-mache theater thing) isn't really provoked by good art. Or aesthetically pleasing art, which can be deeply moving, which usually the thought it provokes is just "oh, that's beautiful." Only really bad art can achieve this kind of debate. And who knows? Maybe this was the experience that inspired the next Monet. As long as it's free, I guess I don't really mind.