Where Cath deconstructs art and art wankers

I ventured to the MoMA today to seek out art and culture. Apparently it seems that nearly all of New York was there to do the same. Generally I shy from Modern Art galleries, since many of the works don’t seem to affect me in the way that I wish them to. Although I have enjoyed the Tate Gallery in London, I know some installations in similar venues are dull to the point of banal. For example, the installation shown at left, is exactly as it appears to be – a piece of string. I could try and elaborate some bullshit as to what the artist was trying to portray in this piece – but frankly, little comes to mind other than a supreme sense of the artist’s having a great wank at the art world’s expense. I thought I might be moved by the Monet, although the Agapantha’s was a lovely work, they all felt a little messy to me today.

The most profound works in the whole museum were the works of art that were actual objects of practicality. How truly beautiful is the iPod? The curve and grace of all manner of jugs and glasses? The flicking board that announces the oncoming trains in European stations? These all seemed so much more beautiful than some self-serving splotch of paint on a canvas.

The exception to this rule, which surprised me greatly, was Picasso. Sometimes it takes just one work to change one’s mind about an artist. Today I saw, “Girl in the Mirror” by Picasso, and I suddenly understood his work. I was stunned.

Of course, being in an art gallery of any type, one expects to be confronted with art wankers. But the prize of the day goes to the woman taking a tour group of students through the room of Jackson Pollock. Pollock is beyond me. I just don’t get his work, and clearly nor did this group of teenagers. So this tour guide, was beseeching them to look at each work and discern their differences to each other, since to this amateur, they looked like varying shades of the same shit. And her hint to their striking differences?

“Well…. Some are smaller…”