Rethinking what art is

Well, this is all very nice for Rachel Mason. I don't wish to sound mean-spirited, but Mason is another instance of the pompier art that one sees everywhere. That she is light-hearted about it is to her credit. Given the better angels of her nature (the fact that she counts Velasquez, Rodin, Picasso, Daumier among her heros), perhaps she will make real art someday when the Yale School thing has worked its way out of her system.
Tout ca change, tout c'est la meme chose. The chic art lauded by the official "art world" rarely has much in common with real art or real life. So, for instance, Mason ought not be surprised at the offer to show her sketches. However, she should have turned the offer down. The sketches are neither exceptionally bad, nor particularly good. The only reason they were included, one supposes, is -- well, why not include them? How are they substantively different from the photos/videos of her miming a candiate posture?
What I personally would look for "as art" within them is definitely not there. I cannot really see anything in them that speaks to life, that would stand as uniquely Ms. Mason's idea. I see lots of conventional ideas about image making as well as about sociology. Mind, this has nothing to do with their being "representational." It's just that the graphic means of describing things is all secured in advance of her actually looking at her subject. I see them as potential demonstrations for a "how to draw cartoon figures" book. Similarly, the figurine of Hussain is not something I would have recognized as such without its caption. Whatever idea it holds relies completely on its presumed subject. And ANY "light" depiction of Saddam would have been equal to the task.
Ooh, la, la -- contrast to this the dynamic power a little Degas bather. We don't ask the identity of the figure. It isn't even relevant that the figure is a "bather" -- so much is just pretext. All that really matters is the figure is of a woman, and a Degas figure is filled with FORM. Today people doing "sculpture" are hard-pressed to understand what form IS. They might suppose that simply making something that is three dimensional means that perforce it has "form." And what a mistake!
People need to relearn the very notion of art -- the people who most need to learn this are "artists." Well, perhaps. Actually a real artist isn't taught. Once you realize that a particular artist needs to be taught ideas which ought to be obvious, then you are not dealing with a true artist. Real art is not the thing that can be taught. It just happens because it's a natural product of the self.
It may sound elitist to talk about in terms that can evoke "great art." But people need great art. Even Ms. Mason acknowledges that her heros include Velasquez, Rodin, Picasso, Daumier. My advice (though it would be bad advice as regards her "career") would be study your heros. This is not the "conservative" advice that it might seem. Oh, but that's another topic.
[Picture: by moderationsmuse]