It would be unwise to be a priori against contemporary art. After all, the art of our elders was in their day their contemporary art.
Already in the 1950s Mailhol's sculptures began to shock a part of the Parisian population. The challenge of our day has greatly increased. It is therefore necessary to analyze this new art and this phenomenon of rejection in the light of several criteria:- RESPECT of the PLACE of RECEPTION : The increasingly heterogeneous nature of modern works of art in relation to their environment is being met more and more often. Why
is the "vagina of the queen" or the anal plug of the Place Vendome not
exposed on the forecourt of the Defense in Paris where it would have
their place? In fact these works unduly benefit from the
manna of tourist entries in mythical places very attractive (castles,
(example of the castle of Chaumont sur Loire), cathedrals, abbeys) which
naturally attract crowds. And also state subsidies from regional councils and the Ministry of Culture, which General de Gaulle was so suspicious of.
- PEOPLE CONSENSUS : Castles, churches and cathedrals in France have a considerable number of visits, therefore
a consensus by this very number : Some welcome contemporary works of
art : It would be interesting, more logical and fair to create neutral
places (or use contemporary places) where
contemporary works of art would be collected, without benefiting from
the proximity of a historic castle that attracts them naturally and
quite biased visits.
# FUNDING: It can be
shocking for many citizens that their tax dollars are used to pay for
state-sponsored artists for works that they would not agree to donate,
in their vast majority, not a dime. - THE SCIENTIFIC POINT DE VUE of the informative content of the oeuvres
: At
the present time, thanks to the mathematical theory of information, few
people, alas, know a scientific way of evaluating the amount of
information, whatever it may be, in a work of art. We
can, for example, intuitively recognize that an isoplane door has less
information than a XVIIth gate of the castle of Versailles. A bar-style building has less than a so-called "style" building. (See my text on the informational content of the images). From
this point of view, it can be observed scientifically that contemporary
works of art, both architectural and object, contain (and therefore do
not transmit) the vast majority of them a very limited amount of
information. It
is enough to launch a program of analysis of their informational
quantity to give this result, independent of any consideration of style
or time. Recall in passing that the information vacuum is closer to chaos, when we have an excess of information. This is scientifically proven. And one can see concretely that most contemporary works of art are:
- Are very poor in information : (see examples above).
- Either are representations of chaos: For example, the droppings dumped on the vagina of Queen Anish Kapoor are part of the work. This comparison is understandable in the light of the foregoing. Likewise for Nero, the chaos engendered by the fire of Rome was a "work of art". In
the same way, Monsieur Apatie (from the french TV channel "Canal +" ! ) dreams of destroying the Palace of
Versailles (I doubt, however, that his thoughts are so profound). Many contemporary architects or painters and sculptors also think like him. But mostly because they would simply not be able to reproduce them! Only great masters like Dali or Picasso were really capable of producing works of the unrivaled quality of The Mona Lisa.
- Either both, mixing both chaos and empty information.
THE FALSE COMPLEXITY OF WORK OF THE CONTEMPORARY ARTIST:
It is obvious that an abstract contemporary art work is easily duplicable even by an amateur painter. It is quite different from a classic work of art that very few contemporary painters can or could possibly reproduce. Only a Daly or a Picasso were able to remake The Mona Lisa, or any other painting of a great old master. It
is therefore easy for pseudo-artists to make so-called brilliant
abstract works, or to assemble rusty sheets or other waste to make it a
"work of art". Only snobbery in the trendy circles maintain the rating of these blisters of schoolboy. I particularly like this remark of a young child in front of a modern abstract painting: It's grandbouillage! he said spontaneously! The
truth comes out of the mouths of children ... Let's also quote the
famous painting "Aliboron" painted by the tail of a donkey: This
so-called "art" allows in fact all the impostures, within reach of brush
of any scribouillard devoid of any talent but knowing very well manipulate his communication and scratch the good money public money.
THEIR UNDERLYING GOAL :
Every work of art is the reflection of a goal, stemming from the thought of its designer. These
goals were the most diverse over the centuries: demonstrations of power
(castles), knowledge, beauty, symbolism (cathedrals), magnification
sometimes false events experienced (Napoleon crossing the Alps), even
destruction etc. .. From what precedes, what dominates most
often in the contemporary art is the void or the chaos, which amounts
to the same thing. (if only in the sense of the theory of
information): One can thus deduce that the very idea of their authors is
to show this emptiness and this chaos, so to cut of any reference, of
any root , the viewer, to create a humanity without a past. I
think this is the unacknowledged purpose of contemporary works of art
that I have exposed here as representative of this trend.