I was swept in from a friend's bookmark page and was surprised to find this excellent discussion going on.

My background: A couple of years ago I got a Master's in art (specifically performance and installation art), but I also live in the outside world.

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...

Part of the problem, I think, is that modern art is like jazz, or folk music, anywhere else where participants and fans are steeped in symbols and references that you don't see much in mainstream culture. But it's worse for art because with music you can at least go into a nearby store and buy a CD or tape. Looking at art in a tiny picture in a book or on a website Just Is Not The Same.

Also, we're exposed to a lot more music than we are to art. We've got a fighting chance to catch the symbols. (This sound means "sad," this sound probably means "something's funny," and so forth. We can hear it in movie music if nowhere else.) But for visual symbolism, how many people see art anywhere but in a college classroom or in a poster on their dorm wall? I live in California, where they butchered school arts programs decades ago -- I'll bet $10 more kids hear about classical, jazz, and hip-hop than they do about any different classifications of art.

At home we're fortunate/foolish enough to have a mini-dish. We get music channels via satellite, 20-30 channels of different kinds of music. There is no mini-dish broadcast of 20-30 different channels of visual fine art.

I saw a show at the local museum of modern art a few years ago where the artist did nothing but paint with white paint on white canvas & paper. Sounds bogus to you? It did to me when I went in. But I left the exhibit thinking about different shades of white, texture, technique, what the color white might "mean" if you thought about it, and what you can see when you really look closely. "Wow, I never thought about that before," I said when I walked home. Some of that artist's work made references to other artists' works, too.

Another thing: for performances or installations (besides that being where the big money is, har har), you kinda have to be in the same room to experience what the artist is trying to do. Otherwise it's like reading someone's review of a concert as opposed to hearing it yourself. And how many places are there where you can experience these things directly? I live in a major metropolitan area, but I could still count the places where I can see an art performance or installation on my fingers (might have to use the big toes every once in a while, but not often).

It's not that much better for paintings. Commercial galleries aren't common, and when you find them they're probably selling the equivalent of a McDonald's Happy Meal. Because that's what people are familiar with. Hey, the gallery owner is trying to make a living.

Nowadays most people get their art filtered through images from TV or advertising. Because the ad folks probably went to art school, so they're familiar with the images, plus they have the cash to have fun with gorgeous special effects. Most TV viewers have seen more Saturday Night Live sketch comedy about Van Gogh or Picasso than they've ever read about those two artists, let alone any other artist.

And finally -- a lot of the art that's out there is trying to communicate about (thanks Amos and M.Ted, among others) commercialism, or the merchandising of images, or the way advertising has even crept into public bathroom stalls, or how PR can create an event out of thin air. Maybe that was one point of the "empty exhibit" that began this thread (I don't know anything more than I've read here, so I could be wrong). A lot of artists *are* taking the piss...but you the gallery viewer aren't the target.

I have a whole other rant about how people often do art and don't know it, because they've been told capital-A "Art" is something separate and forever beyond them. But this might be enough ranting for now.

Thanks for the space to rattle on a bit.