Art Theory

I am currently taking an art history class that focuses in art from 1940s to the present. Much of the work done in this time frame is some of my least favorite art. I would much rather be looking at art from the 1700 - 1800s, but that's a different matter entirely. What I would like to talk about today is art that we have been discussing in the class I AM taking. Art that is justified through writing and without it, would be truly atrocious art.

It's art like this that I really can't stand. This piece by Dubuffet, "Volonte de Puissance," is one of those pieces that truly infuriates me. This has to be one of the most unproductive periods in art. Despite being bashed by critics at the time as literally being called "caca art," many critics later changed their tune and went on to talk about how great it was. I think they had it right the first time.

I think what bothers me the most about art like this is the lack of skill required. This probably explains why I love much older art. I understand that it's art like this that is meant to progress art theory rather than be proof of any sort of skill, but I honestly think that too many artists back then and today that get so caught up in theory that the art itself is completely forgotten.

This ultimately comes down on art critics. An artist can only succeed if he is uplifted by art critics. The problem is that most critics care more about art theory than the art itself. This causes artists to be constantly pushing the boundaries and exploring new theories, and all together abandoning the art itself. I feel like I spend more time hearing about theories of other artists than actually developing myself as an artist...