Don't just sit back and look at the art

Image: Kathy Butterly, Like Butter , 1997
Porcelain, earthenware, and glaze 4-3/4 x 3-1/4 x 3-3/8 inches Courtesy of the artist and Tibor de Nagy Gallery, New York

After writing this post yesterday in which I wondered how we figure out what is good art, I read today on the C-Monster blog about someone who is as perplexed as I am. This guy visited the Walker Art Center and had a hard time understanding why anything he saw there should have been considered art. He makes a good point:

Correct me if I’m wrong and I’m sure every art major out there will jump at the chance once they are done dipping an entire engine in sugar water to crystallize it will do so, but isn’t art suppose to be something that evokes some kind of emotion?

Isn’t art supposed to say something about anything that is happening or was happening in the world? Isn’t art supposed to resonate deep inside of us even if we don’t understand it?

One think I'd suggest to him is to understand the ideas behind the art he sees, do a little research. What you see is merely an object that is a representation of an idea. What's most important to me is the idea and the process of conceiving of it. Art is more than emotional reactions - it's also meant to make you think, maybe even make you do a little work to understand it. That's one of the things I love about modern and contemporary art: it's much more than a passive experience. It can be a very active and stimulating experience.