Nebula 2- Form or Function?

Form or Function?

By Jess Young

We are living in a time now where we can look back over the last 50 years, 100, 200, and see an undeniable and drastic change in art, and what qualifies something as an artwork. But where did this change come about? Was there a sudden snap when a young and free-thinking artist just said ‘no, I’ve had enough of this, let’s do something different!’, and others followed suit, or have we gradually become desensitised to the beauty and skill that’s associated with more representational, or for want of a better term, classical art, always demanding something new and exciting. Did we just get bored?

Because art has changed. Art is always changing, it always was, and everything had to be new once. But what is it that separates today’s contemporary art so much; what do these new things mean?

Now that British Art Show7 has arrived in Plymouth for the first time, we find ourselves confronted with art that is not necessarily easy for us to understand, and therefore not always the most appealing thing to expose ourselves to. This event which only travels the country every 5 years is supposed to be exciting, and we in Plymouth are very lucky to be one of the host cities. But if it is the case that it is only showcasing contemporary art that is produced to shock or confuse, then it might be an event that is hard for the general public to get enthusiastic about.

Much of our current contemporary art is often considered less aesthetic and beautiful than more classical art, and a lot of the time it’s very easy to say ‘well I could do better than that!’, and the simplest response is of course ‘but you didn’t’. However, a question that has to be posed here is that if contemporary art is lacking in this heavy visual surface that a lot of art once had, and that was considered key to art in the past; if it is lacking this, then isn’t what’s left just the meaning, and sentiment behind the work? And if this is the case, does that make it more important, if all it demands is an immediate cerebral reaction?

This could explain why it’s so easy to shy away from it. If you visit the National Gallery or Tate Britain in London, you can spend hours admiring and absorbing the skill, and take pleasure in the beauty of these works, and if you want, you can leave it at that, not questioning the history or story behind the work. Perhaps a lot of contemporary art doesn’t give you that option. And if you can’t immediately see what the piece is trying to put to you, then there’s nothing that you can take from it at all, making some art very difficult to engage with. Who wants art that has to be explained to you? If it doesn’t touch you on any visual or sensory level, is this really good art?

It’s a difficult question, because these are very bold statements, and of course only one person’s musings. And indeed the British Art Show is there to bring a wide range of British Contemporary art to people that might otherwise not have a chance to see it, and to make it more accessible to everyone, instead of just to people who have an art education.

This being said, however, what I have gathered from my own investigations of what people like to see in art, it has to be something that you can immediately engage with to make it enjoyable. The majority of people that I asked however, also felt that Art could be qualified as such providing that there was thought and meaning behind the work. Something relevant to today’s society, something that has social impact. If this is all that people require then I don’t think that there can be any doubt that this is what the 39 artists involved with the British Art Show are trying to communicate, and have been successful at doing so.

Myself, as an art student, a painter and a printmaker, engage with all kinds of art that doesn’t necessarily reflect what I do, and that spans all different times and movements. The art featured in the British Art Show, though it is somewhat new and alien, is just as important as every piece of work that has come before, and that was dismissed in the past. All we need to do here is consider artists like Van Gogh or Turner, who although are now considered by many as two of the greatest artists ever to have lived, were not successful in their times, and were in fact pooh-pooh’d by their audience and critics.

I think that after all of this, the only thing left for us to do is just visit the exhibition with an open mind and draw our own conclusions. It won’t be for everyone, but it might change some minds, and prompt some new thoughts about what art can be, about how we view the world around us. If we are to examine the title ‘in the Days of the Comet’ in the context of the exhibition, then we are to imagine these works as a bundle of alien material, ready to strike Earth and prompt a revolution; to alter our perceptions. The only question that we need to consider right now is; are you ready for your world to change?