I've got some time here.

Just a little spot of time, a pause in an otherwise full day. I should probably use it to sort out the mess of paperwork that I lug around from office to office to office to home in my new shiny red purse. So many meetings (9 this week so far), so much on my to do list. But I perused the blogs of the blog-writing faithful and both new entries were art-related. That fits in nicely with what I wanted to write about--art--and so to hell with work, it's time for art.

I watched two documentaries this week and both dealt with modern art, Pollock, and What is Art, Anyway?

The first was called "Who the &%^# is Jackson Pollock?". An older, female truck driver goes into a thrift store and spots this large (4x6?) ugly painting and decides to buy it for $5 and give it as a funny white elephant gift to her depressed friend. The painting wouldn't fit into the friend's trailer door, so the trucker took it somewhere and someone told her that she might have a Pollock on her hands. "Who the *%&#$ is Pollock?" she asked, and so her story begins.

Due to her rather rudimentary nature, she was, of course, shunned by an art world that seems to require its participants to possess a completely obnoxious superiority complex. At least, those were the people she encountered. Anyway, they told her there was no way it could be a masterpiece by Pollock, worth around $50 million, because Pollocks don't end up in thrift stores and, by the way, you're trash so we don't have to even entertain your ridiculous notions.

Being a stubborn white trash gal, she kept pushing and pushing, trying to solve the mystery of is it? or isn't it? And if it is, why is it worth $50 million and if it isn't, why is something that looks exactly like a Pollock worthless?

I won't spoil the movie for you. But it brings up the wonderful question of why some things are worth a lot more than other things. And I like to hear what people say about what makes the kind of art that looks like 'my kid could do it' so important. Or why a bunch of noise in the form of 'real' jazz or certain Velvet Underground songs is 'important'.

I remember asking my husband his thoughts about the Beatles. 'Why are the Beatles considered such visionaries, and why are they so popular?' My husband is very knowledgeable about rock and roll--he's the guy who reads all the liner notes, musician bios, knows the kind of guitar the guy on TV is playing and all the greats who played that kind of guitar, etc. And it should be said that he and I are Rolling Stones people. Both bands are great, and we love them both. But as you move through life you will meet Beatles people and Rolling Stones people. There is a difference, pop culture-wise.

He said that the Beatles were THE BEATLES mostly because of the studio wizardry, and that their producer had a lot to do with that. They were also blessed by timing. They were hella-inventive (though not the first to go psychedelic) and because they couldn't tour for all the stupid screaming girls drowning out the sound, they concentrated their abundant artistic energy into the studio.

There's more to it, of course, but certainly being the first to do something (or the first to do it well), having a consistency of vision, and creating something that makes people dig a little deeper to 'get' it, and WANT to dig, and then ENJOY it, well, that's doing pretty well. So...Pollock's splatters are worth more than some countries net in a decade.

The second documentary was "My Kid Could Paint That". Here's the site: http://www.sonyclassics.com/mykidcouldpaintthat/

It's about a 4-year old who paints like Pollock--or does she? Is she a prodigy, whatever the hell that is, or is she a talented kid pushed to new levels by her stage dad? Why were her paintings worth so much as a prodigy, but instantly bargain-binned when rumors surfaced (thanks to '60 Minutes') that her dad helped her to 'polish' up her works? The intrigue thickens when two attempts to film her painting something from start to finish end up showing two works that are nearly identical and a notch less good than her other works. (When I look at my friend Burb's eldest daughter's art, I see incredible talent. Or is it her ambitious, ruthless-in-the-quest-for-fame father pushing her???)

The arbitrariness of 'what is art?' is interesting to me. I can see the point of those who say that part of what makes something valuable is the story behind it. Surely something purely new (to the extent that that is possible) has a good story. I suppose that a person overcoming physical and age obstacles to create something 'masterful' is a good story, too. But should those things be more valuable? What makes a black circle on a white canvas priceless? Or a painting of a soup can? Or a bunch of paint splatters? Or "Sgt. Pepper's", Piss Christ, wrapping a building in fabric, or taking vivid pictures of little kids throwing fits?

In the latter movie, there was some commentary by Michael Kimmelman, the art reporter at the New York Times. I liked what he had to say about standards in art:

"Art isn't about utter agreement. Art is about not so much having a single standard, but coming to understand for yourself why you have the standards you do and what their implications are and where that takes you. And then, you know, keeping your eyes open enough to be able to maybe evolve to have different standards, to like different things."

It's simple, it's reasonable, and I like it. It urges you to open your mind to new experiences, yet not be intimidated by the 'experts'--in essence, to 'know what you like'. I feel this way about wine, too. So many snobs, but a taste bud is a taste bud. Learn a little about the grapes, try different wines with different things, and enjoy it. And if you hate heavy, oaky reds, even though the 'experts' go on and on about them, don't sweat it. There's plenty of everything to go around.

In the end, I don't know a whole lot about art, but I know the feeling I get when something stops me in my tracks, makes me go "wow.", and makes me wish I could take it home. I remember the first time I heard the Velvet Underground--I heard it with my whole mind, and it flooded into my chest and I thought "What is this awesome sound?" I had never heard anything like it. And I still love them, and most people would probably hate their music! And that's fine, too.

I remember seeing Monet's "Woman with Umbrella" in Washington D.C. There's nothing screamingly original about it (that I know of), but when you see the real painting, you see the little bit of empty canvas at the edges, the brushstrokes through thick paint. And I thought, "Someone sat down in front of a blank canvas with paint that any of us could go and buy and THIS came out." There've been many others, but you get the idea. I am incredibly thankful that the world is filled with artists and craftspeople and what, exactly, is the difference there? To have a vision and the ability to shape that vision into a painting, or a bunch of notes, or whatever is an incredible gift, and one we should all encourage among those who have it and even those who don't.