If conÂtemÂpoÂrary art bafÂfles you, if you’ve ever looked at conÂtemÂpoÂrary art and wonÂdered “what’s the point?,” then give someÂtimes conÂtroÂverÂsial filmÂmakÂer John Waters four minÂutes of your time. He’ll break it down for you in simÂple, if not crude, terms: “ConÂtemÂpoÂrary art’s job is to wreck whatÂevÂer came before it. And from the very beginÂning after the Old MasÂters, from then on, each genÂerÂaÂtion wrecked that. That someÂthing is pretÂty and beauÂtiÂful is probÂaÂbly the worst thing that you could say today in conÂtemÂpoÂrary art about someÂthing, unless it’s so pretÂty it’s nauÂseÂatÂing.”
You can watch more segÂments of his Big Think interÂview here.
RelatÂed ConÂtent
John Waters’ RISD GradÂuÂaÂtion Speech: Real Wealth Is Life WithÂout A*Holes
John Waters Takes You on a ComÂiÂcal Tour of His ApartÂment (1986)
John Waters’ Hand-Made, OddÂball ChristÂmas Cards: 1964-Present
An Anti, Anti-SmokÂing AnnounceÂment from John Waters
InterÂestÂing. Reminds me of this Susan SonÂtag quote from this 1994 interÂview in The Paris Review: “I was assumÂing that a prinÂciÂpal task of art was to strengthÂen the adverÂsarÂiÂal conÂsciousÂness.”
Lol, conÂtemÂpoÂrary art is hilarÂiÂous. I think it’s a bitÂter joke by the artists to express the irony of their world. If they creÂate someÂthing beauÂtiÂful and solÂid it’s critÂiÂcized as not being as good as the works that came before it. If they creÂate someÂthing crypÂtic (and posÂsiÂbly lackÂing in meanÂing altoÂgethÂer) it’ll be praised as a masÂterÂpiece. The fact that it doesÂn’t make sense is what makes it intriguÂing to the affluÂent audiÂences, mostÂly because it’s that same audiÂence that devote exorÂbiÂtant time and resources tryÂing to conÂvince the rest of the world (and their peers) that they know/understand more than they realÂly do. The point is, it’s not supÂposed to make sense. By not makÂing sense, it makes the observÂer creÂate their own meanÂing makÂing it their own. It only goes to show us the self nature of ourÂselves and how we fight to proÂtect our own perÂcepÂtions of the world. If that isn’t a tragÂic joke from the mind of an artist, I don’t know what is.
Is this still new? HasÂn’t this been the stoÂry of “conÂtemÂpoÂrary art” now for what 40 years? Almost half-a-cenÂtuÂry and this is still the big idea? RealÂly? There is nothÂing more conÂtemÂpoÂrary than this?
John, buy the mold paintÂing and hang it on the outÂside of your house!
A lot of conÂtemÂpoÂrary art seems to be about knockÂing things down : senÂtiÂments, love of beauÂty, social norms, ways of seeÂing things, whatÂevÂer. So long as it is iconÂoÂclasÂtic, strange, shockÂing, apparÂentÂly (or actuÂalÂly) meanÂingÂless, it might make it as a conÂtemÂpoÂrary art sucÂcess. The more outÂraÂgeous or disÂgustÂing, the betÂter. If I were a MarxÂist I’d call it bourÂgeois. It has one of eleÂgance and appeal and sense of real meanÂing under the surÂface as pre-WW2 modÂern art or even Pop Art.
It’s time a sense of meanÂing and purÂpose was restored to art instead of this garbage getÂting the attenÂtion and the pursÂes of the credÂuÂlous midÂdle classÂes.
The main ingreÂdiÂent for sucÂcess in a lot of conÂtemÂpoÂrary artists seems to be not so much talÂent as audacÂiÂty : the audacÂiÂty to proÂduce a pile of crap and then smoothÂly proÂnounce it as art. You first need to go to art school to pick up the jarÂgon and the pose — not indisÂpensÂable but it helps — and then start brandÂing your work. And the fat-pursed idiots all line up ooh-ing and ah–ing.
What a joke.
FunÂny. I must be in the minorÂiÂty as I enjoy conÂtemÂpoÂrary art, obviÂousÂly not all, the same way as no-one preÂsumÂable likes all action movies or all litÂerÂary ficÂtion. A lot of conÂtemÂpoÂrary art is also humorÂous, besides shockÂing — hard to shock anyÂone these days, so kudos if you manÂage — thought proÂvokÂing and enterÂtainÂing.