I was recently out with a group of friends talking about art. I think it was at the GenArt benefit party which actually had little to do with art, but a lot to do with reality TV. And that, of course, has little to do with reality or art but a lot to do with exaggeration and artificiality. Very Mannerist. Are you bored with my pretentiousness? Well, it's just the first paragraph.. There's more..
We talked about TV, and how distracting all the cameras were, but also about "getting" art and whether appreciation of art was democratic. (I say no and yes: No, because a lot of modern art requires a knowledge of context, theory and other references to appreciate, but Yes, because a lot of that knowledge is available to anyone who makes the time and effort to open their minds and acquire it.) Of course, artistic talent and skill and a work's impact are anything but democratic and you should judge what you like or don't like, but your judgement is more valid if you actually know what you're talking about. I may be biased, as I majored in Art History and like to think it left me with something more than the best looking text books among my friends.
And believe it or not, these thoughts are in my head because of Madonna. And a stranger in pastel green. But I'll start with Madonna.
In my first post (and at least once or twice since then), I quoted Diana Vreeland's preference for bad taste over no taste. I'm pretty sure she didn't mean any old bad taste like Hummers, Celine Dion, and Mariah Carey (though I suppose they also reflect a lack of taste). I think she meant bad taste from someone who knowingly takes a leap outside the established boundaries of what is tasteful. And, while this is a very pop culture example, I kind of think Madonna made that leap (hop?) in her maligned Louis Vuitton "rabbit ear" outfit. Personally, I read that look as the girl on Fragonard's "Swing" dressed for a night clubbing (also very Mannerist), but it does unfortunately come a bit close to looking like one of those "Sexy Pirate Wench" costumes you get at Ricky's for Halloween, which is probably why NY Post said she looked like a medieval dominatrix with rabbit ears. (Medieval, though? That's a few centuries off.)
I wouldn't really have paid it more than a couple minute's attention if it hadn't been mentioned in a NY Times article about irony and whether women older than 50 are still allowed to express it in fashion. Silly question really, why shouldn't they? Though I'd prefer expression not to be limited to irony.
But I would like that expression to be thoughtful. Not every step outside good taste has equal merit. Some bad taste challenges stodgy perceptions that deserve it, while other bad taste comes from not really thinking, I believe (i.e., the Mariah Carey, Celine Dion kind of taste). And falling along those lines is the stranger in the pastel green outfit of embroidered stretch pants, shirt and fuzzy cardigan at the bar after GenArt who, despite otherwise looking like she cared about her appearance, chose pastels, sparkles, and fuzziness. My friends and I tried to come up with reasons for why she might have dressed like that: maybe she's a newscaster from a small city and dressed from the wardrobe department? Maybe her inspiration for ironic retro is very recent? Or maybe there was no excuse and she just liked it. And that's fine. It's a free country. People should feel free to like what they like and not have to pretend they don't. After all, Mariah and Celine sell albums. And people say "realitor" and "Wimbleton". But that doesn't mean that's right. And it doesn't mean they can't do better.
(No offense to friends who like Hummers, Mariah, Celine, or pastel green embroidered outfits. I like you, but not them. Everyone has their weaknesses and I'm sure I must have one too...)
I'm joking, of course. The cut and paste I did of Madonna's Louis Vuitton boots onto the Fragonard Swing involved Elmer's glue and an X-acto knife. I probably should learn a little PhotoShop, at least.
the horizon...
