Art, and news, is in the mind of the beholder

'Lucy In the Field With Flowers' oil on canvas by Unknown. 24" x 30." This work, acquired from trash in Boston, was the first painting in the Museum of Bad Art collection. (Used by permission).

A recent NPR radio broadcast featured the Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) near Boston. The museum’s mission is “to celebrate the labor of artists whose work would be displayed and appreciated in no other forum.” They exhibit only about 25 pieces at a time in their space, located in a theater basement, adjacent to the men’s bathroom, but their collection consists of over 500 works.

The criteria for earning the designation “bad art” is vague, but the head of the museum, Michael Frank, says he knows it when he sees it.

“What we look for are pieces of work that are produced in an attempt to make some sort of artistic statement, but clearly something has gone wrong,” Frank says. “There has to be something about it that makes you stop, and very often wonder why the artist continued down the path to produce what he or she did.”

Intrigued by the radio story, I examined some of the paintings online. If the museum were here in the South, we’d look at the paintings and say, “Bless their hearts.” But even though their work has been labelled as “bad,” I emphasize that it is still called “art.” And so, a work need not be good to be art.

These bad paintings are in a collection, being viewed by hundreds of gallery visitors and on the Internet, while other, better-executed works lie in the attics and garages of their creators, forgotten. Can we take this to mean that there is not a direct correlation between artistic ability and success? There must be other factors involved.

The MOBA has assigned a value to most of their pieces at around $6.50. But not all art which people have labelled “bad” goes for so little. Paintings on black velvet of crying clowns are now collectible and sell for hundreds of dollars on ebay. Andres Serrano received a $15,000 prize for his photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in his own urine. People called that bad art.

The works at the MOBA were painted intentionally with aspirations of artistic fulfillment, and not with the goal of being controversial. Perhaps it is the intention that allows these works to still be called art, even though bad. But when art is designated rather than created, problems arise.

Making art with found objects is not new. It was common among dadaists right after World War I and especially associated with Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” which were manufactured objects he chose and minimally modified by autographing, or changing the piece’s position. His most famous readymade was the work he titled “Fountain” (1917) a urinal, signed with a ficticious name, R. Mutt, to conceal his identity since he was well known in art circles. Controversy ensued when this work was accepted in a major show, but then hidden from view.

An anonymous writer of the time said in an editorial, “Whether [the artist] made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view created a new thought for that object.”

Duchamp said he intended to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.

I have heard several people compare the Salisbury artist Clyde to Duchamp in the weeks since he duct-taped a pair of briefs to the side of his shop, setting off a series of unfortunate events when the undergarment disappeared. I first read the comparison in a blog by Sam Post, then have heard Duchamp’s name mentioned by art scholars.

In a Fox News interview, Clyde stated he displayed the underwear because he disliked his neighbor. There’s some disagreement as to whether Clyde himself proclaimed it to be art, or if others did so. He has been heard frequently saying, before and after the incident, “What is art?” so maybe people just came to the conclusion that the underwear was Clyde’s one-man dada exhibit when he was actually just trying to be annoying.

When people find out I write for the Salisbury Post, polite introductions are often followed by criticism of the news content of the paper. I’m sometimes taken aback by how mean people can be about my chosen profession. I don’t actually work for the news division, I write for the lifestyle area, but that makes no difference. I am guilty by association.

It has been two weeks since the great underwear caper came out on the front page of the newspaper, but I am still being told this was not news. I’m not sure if people feel it isn’t news because it’s about underwear, or even worse, about art.

The director of an agency in charge of dispersing government funding to local artists has been charged with larceny after an incident involving a well-known local artist — what part of that is not news?

Most people who I’ve heard complaining about the front page prominence have said “that’s not news” instead of “I don’t think that’s news.” There’s a big difference in those two statements. It’s like saying “that’s not art” instead of “in my personal opinion, that is not art.” News and art seem to be two areas where individuals feel comfortable speaking on behalf of all people.

In a letter to the editor following the underwear story, someone wrote “ ‘What is art?’ is an altogether frivolous issue.”

That stung a little, since I am one of the discussion leaders for a series of talks being held at Center for Faith & the Arts called “What is Art?”

It was at one of these talks that someone suggested that when artists have produced a body of outstanding work, such as Clyde, with his paintings displayed in homes and businesses all around Salisbury, they have earned the right of selecting an object and claiming it as their artwork.

Am I willing to call a pair of duct-taped underwear “art”? Absolutely.

Would I want underwear to be displayed on the wall of my home? No. But neither would I want anything painted by Thomas Kinkade, in spite of his popularity.

I want art to create conversation. But while the polarizing underwear incident has provided a topic for many discussions, a most important conversation did not occur between the two main players in this drama. When one takes something from someone he or she knows, that should be followed by a discussion of the reason, or maybe even an argument, but not criminal charges. It’s not the same as if the underwear had been taken by a stranger.

I’m still hoping for reconciliation, or an agreement to disagree. In this case, the finest art may be the art of forgiveness.

Contact Sarah Hall at shall@salisburypost.com.