
I have to start by saying I know nothing about "Art". I've taken art courses and have art books and visit art museums, and can sometimes even answer art questions on
Jeopardy, but for the most part I'm very uneducated on the subject. I figure if I don't really "get" what I'm looking at it must be "Art". I have a friend who always says to me, "Oh, I forgot, you don't like art." That's really not fair because I do like art, I just don't understand it. I don't claim to know what good "Art" is, but I definitely know crap when I see it, and the exhibit I saw Saturday was turd-city. It just infuriates me that someone can take pictures of the same green building at different angles (and not even good angles), group the pictures together and call it art. Or take a picture of a red shack in the woods and talk about what it "means". Or take a picture of a rundown building called the "Klub" with old cars parked in front. How is that "Art"? Someone please tell me. This dude has fooled someone. I kid you not, Jarrod and Abigail have taken pictures as good as what I saw on display. I would never show those pictures to anyone if I had taken them; in fact, they would probably have been deleted. Don't get me wrong -- my self-confidence is pretty much in the toilet everyday, but I like to think I have a higher standard for my pictures than the junk I saw on display. Maybe that's why I'll never show in a museum: I don't have it in me to B.S. someone into thinking my picture of a crappy red building in the woods is worthy of being on display when it so obviously is not. And that's just what this dude did. Give me a break!
And then in the next gallery was literally a picture torn from a Winnie the Pooh coloring book, scribbled with markers (not even in the lines!), framed and called "Art". God help us all. I think it was by some famous "artist", but he must've been having an off-day creatively.
I hung out with my friend Jose Saturday night so that made me feel better.