Art History

History is an odd subject.

Trying to extract modern meaning from something a genius said back in the days when everyone thought Satan was the cause of their back-pain, is going to be a real pile of butts.

It can be made worse when art is thrown in, because it takes a hell of a lot of perspective to be able to realistically appreciate a picture that was specifically designed for the people who were telling everyone that their back-pain was caused by Satan.

Contrary to this, most art history is taught in such a way to exclude the possibility of proper perspective. 

An Art Historian will not say, “At the time they thought this picture was great.”

They will say, “This picture is great.”

And it’s at that exact moment that they shut out almost everyone who ever comes into contact with the subject.

This is a problem.

Why is the possibility of proper perspective actively excluded? It’s because if you take a proper look at art you might find out that the ideals don’t exist on some immortal, elevated plain.  It’s just rich people who want to own expensive shit.

Here’s something you won’t hear an art historian say:

“The reason there are so many female nudes in painting is that men enjoy perving on a lady’s tits.  The reason that most of these nudes are found in allegorical paintings is because men like to think that it’s less pervy if the tits are pretending to have something to do with mythology.”

Why would it be so strange to read this in art history? Because it would demystify art.  It would help make art understandable and accessible, and if art is accessible it has no value.

If art becomes accessible it means that wealthy people will need to find something else to reinforce the divide between themselves and the filthy masses.

However, the really annoying part is when the student who likes drawing, is presented with either an ancient or modern piece of art which is described as being immortally brilliant.  In truth it could only be considered brilliant by someone with a very specific perspective, and one that is not shared by the vast majority of contemporary society, but instead it’s presented in a way that precludes the possibility that there can be other opinions on the matter. This means that if the student can’t find a way to somehow reconcile their values with those held by people within these specific groups, then they have no place in the art world.

The art world says to the budding artist:

“If you don’t value this 12^th century painting, or this circle by Malevich, above the various cartoons you watch on TV, then your taste is wrong.”

How can you be an artist if your taste is wrong?  That would be like a guy who loves the taste of dirt trying to become a chef.  When he tried to make good food it would inevitably taste like dirt to everyone else, and they would spit it out and kick him in the butt.

In reality no student can feel inspired by the work of Malevich, or any such “significant” artwork that simply offers no way in for someone who hasn’t studied the academic and culturally specific elements of the pictures.  A student can lie to themself and pretend to be inspired by these works, and they are duly rewarded with accolades and the promise of a bright future. 

Most of the time, however, the student will tell art it can go eat a butt. 

In my experience this is the way that the history of art is presented to students, and it is why most kids who have a talent for art choose not to pursue it as a career.

The solution is to stop acting like galleries are so important.  Stop perpetrating the idea that if someone pays a lot of money for something you should automatically bow down and worship it, rather than deciding for yourself whether it has any value, and what the nature of that value is.

Try to illuminate the reasons behind cultural significance rather than acting like the value of the work is in the timeless aura that will reveal itself to those who are worthy.

Maybe if you do I’ll stop complaining about it, you jerk you.