Sunday, February 24, 2008


In my continuing quest to avoid any news pertaining to Britney, I frequently visit my regular favorite photo sites. One of these is, and I've become a fan of the News in Photography section. I clicked there tonight, and found that one of my fellow photo.netters had posted a link to this "news" story: Paparazzi admit pursuit of Britney has gone too far.

OMG. It's invading my beloved Is no place sacred?!

Thoroughly disgusted, I pulled up the site for our local art musuem, which I firmly believe really is sacred, and am fairly sure that Britney will never invade. Art as refuge takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it? Anyway, I check every so often to see if they have any photography exhibits currently running. Don't get me wrong, I love all the art there (yes, M, even Spectrum II), but I do make a special effort to go see photography exhibits whenever they bring them in (which is few and far in between, in my book).

I found they do have a current photography exhibit running...yay!

And then, I read about it. And saw one of the images from it.

Let's just post a couple of the description lines here, shall we?

For Untitled, 2004 (1278 Antwerpen), Breuer renders stacked shipping containers as sculptural assemblages that are monumental yet unintentional and fleeting. Their crude physicality is tempered by the delicate planes of color that are arranged against a milky white sky.

I think this is marketing-speak for, "This guy's work is incredibly boring and doesn't really say much of anything, because it's showing freight containers in a shipping yard for Pete's sake, but I gotta say something so I can, you know, earn a paycheck."

Really, the image shown is literally a snapshot of a stack of shipping containers. The sky is blown out (hench a "milky white sky") and the paint is, well, standard shipping container paint (not to be confused with "delicate planes of color").

And don't get me started again on the idiocy of naming your work "Untitled." That's just laziness.

Shipping containers, though. Where do people get this stuff?

I continued reading:

He...has recently shifted his attention to aspects of the American landscape. He focuses on the ubiquitous utility poles that link the country together and bear witness to the ever-increasing demands for energy and data.

Really? The guy takes pictures of telephone poles and that's art?

It makes me wonder...what in the hell, exactly, am I doing?

M requested I call his father and let him know of the exhibit, which I declined as I made the mistake once of taking both of them to the art museum. Together. At the same time. I will never, ever do that again. Let's just say that they had more fun there than two monkeys in a barrel, and brought about the same maturity level to the outing. It got to the point where security guards were eyeing us suspiciously, and even, at one point, following us around.

So, while it's fine for me to critically disparage "art," it's not fine for them to get their yuks around it. Maybe it's because I know a little something about art and have developed an appreciation for it, whereas their idea of art is a fine equation or anything drawn with a t-square. Or, in M's case, anything that depicts grand vistas with weary travellers in the foreground. Anyway, I now know to not take them to the art museum together, and surely not to see photographic images of shipping containers and telephone poles.

You want to see them laugh sometime? Ask them, together, about going to the art museum. M will throw back his head and laugh and laugh, and my FIL will laugh so hard he'll turn red and have to remove his glasses to wipe the tears from his eyes.


Post a Comment

<< Home