What do we mean when we say something is ‘art’? To me it is an interpretation of one’s view. ‘Three blind men and an elephant’ spring to mind. To be brutally honest and opinionated this is the worst week for me. I am no way, shape or form an individual who would deliberately go to an art gallery or exhibition and doubt very much I would even consider showing any of my ‘art’ in this form. In my opinion the viewer should have reasoning or a connection with the subject to make a formidable likeable connection. For example, regarding the video and the exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery and how women portray other women or themselves. The use of their body to inflict questions of identity, memories or exploration? This may be creative in their own terms and has impact to likeminded people, but in no way, does it appeal to myself. This is not a gender specific or sexiest interpretation, I would still have the same view if the role was reversed.
Emma Barker makes a valid point, “Many contemporary artists reject the traditional media of painting and sculpture and work instead with pre-fabricated materials and photographic media (see Plates 76 and 153). Admittedly; of course, the identification of such practices as art is a contentious issue for many people (inevitably so given that even early twentieth-century abstract art has yet to be uniformly accepted). To say that it depends ultimately on their presence in the museum might seem to confirm often expressed suspicions that modern art represents an art world' conspiracy' perpetrated on the public.” Emma Barker CONTEMPORARY CULTURES OF DISPLAY page 12. I believe in today’s society and technology, that art is so much more accessible. Who deems an artefact; drawing, painting, performance, photograph, animation, film, or even graffiti is in the eye of the beholder.
During my visit to the Hepworth Art Gallery I got more satisfaction of the lighting and shadows what the sculptures created or from the outside view than I did the artefacts themselves. Is this wrong of me to appreciate something so invaluable? This brings me onto reflecting on my peers comments.
I still feel strongly about the comment I made in the forum “Total development costs, including the footbridge and all infrastructure designed to improve access were £35 million. This was funded by: Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund, Yorkshire Forward, the European Union (ERDF) and the Homes and Communities Agency (formerly English Partnerships). I personal feel that this wasn't in the interest of Wakefield. To say the city of Wakefield doesn't have a community stadium to promote health and wellbeing, is a disgrace and morally unjustified. Affordable homes???? NHS (Wakefield - Pinderfields) is the worst in England this year), 3 council golf courses, tennis courts, crown green bowling have all been shut due to funding. I believe the money is needed elsewhere. Just my opinion. I know from the comments above that others feel that Art galleries should be more accessible. I agree, however not at the cost to the tax payer and surely public funding is better off spent were it is most needed or to help reduce our deficit?”
I understand, respect other people’s view and opinions. I feel justified questioning my above comment. I am not saying that ‘Art’ doesn’t have a part to play in health and wellbeing. I personally have close friends who take their autistic children to multi-sensory rooms. This is not my argument and I still feel that money spent on new Art Galleries are better off utilised elsewhere. I also hasten to add that it was only the community stadium that was deciphered from my comment and no debate with reference the money being spent on the affordable homes, NHS or other local amenities?