This tale popped into my head while watching the morning news programme and observing the trouble with which the newscasters engaged with the works of art produced for the Summer Olympics by some of this countries' leading artists. Personally, I enjoyed the work, many seemed very accessible, although others clearly presented problems to the newscasters and viewers judging by the questions asked and the e-mail comments. The Howard Hodgkin blue splash and Bridget Riley coloured parallel lines were two works that generated a wave of antagonism and critical response. I found this surprising for a supposedly unbiased news reporting programme.
I could sense a frustration on the part of the newscasters, struggling with their inability to understand or make sense of artworks that seemingly did not represent the Olympic Games in a way that would engage and focus the nations aspiration for a successful medal haul. At the same time I felt embarrassed for the limited visual perception and visual literacy skills of these newscasters. Their inability to know how to engage with and respond intelligently with these works seemed startling in comparison with their emotional and linguistic intelligence, evident in the way they respond to all the news stories and in the way that they question other guests. Similarly, the treatment of Richard Cork as guest art 'aficionado' was superficial and patronising. The e-mail comments of viewers made clear that this lack of visual understanding or willingness to work at looking, which more widely afflicts our nation and is not confined to those who dislike contemporary culture.
It would be easy to write this off as ignorance or disinterest, but people had taken time to comment and they clearly felt cheated by the artists, for failing to deliver works that would be a focus to the aspirations of the nation. Why so many problems with abstraction then? And why does this generate such negative responses?
This also started me thinking about our students in school, and I began to question whether so much of the contemporary art we show them, engages them as much as we think it does? I started to question my belief in contemporary art and its ability to speak to us all. To excite and interest students in the ideas and concepts that we believe have value. I began to question whether they all 'get it'? Are these ideas as consistent with modern poetry or writing. This led me to wonder if the response of the newscasters and viewers towards these more abstract artworks, characterises the views of many of our students, who are only humouring their art and design teachers in the way that they engage with some contemporary works? After all, if our students understand, why can't intelligent adults?
Clearly we can see that representational works generate responses that are often more measured, certainly because everyone is able to access these works from an assessment of the content, skill and style of the work. The vernacular of these works is understood and largely international in its appeal. Abstract art remains challenging for some and unclear territory for many, suffering often from the perception of an elitist form, or certainly over intellectual; appealing only to those who are interested or prepared to make the effort to try and work out what the artist is saying. Many just don't seem prepared to be bothered, and when that includes journalists and newscasters perhaps we ought to be asking why? or asking when and how did we fail them in their education. Why could we not instil a lifelong love of art and the ability to engage, understand and appreciate? Even if we accept that they don't have to like it.
These thoughts bring me back to the morality tale of the King and his new clothes. Which leads me to question, are those of us qualified in the visual arts and those who appreciate contemporary works, guilty of acting as courtiers by not telling todays artists that we increasingly find ourselves distanced from these works? If these works don't speak to all of us, then the fault must lie with either the works themselves, our reluctance to work hard at reading and engaging with them, or perhaps we simply don't care enough to want to understand. Perhaps we want our art to be easier, to make itself known to us without effort, with a meaning that is clear, accessible and enlightening. Possibly true, but worrying if so. I certainly expect more from my art than a superficial message. In the same way that I don't judge a book by its cover, or until I have at least finished reading it, I expect to have to make a proportional effort with any work of art I view, even the seemingly obvious representational ones. I also expect more of the newscasters, than to display their own inadequacies and prejudices.
This leaves me with no other conclusion than we as art and design educators are failing much of society, by not enabling them to read and build meaning from the art that they see, or to gain pleasure from viewing works of art. They are missing so much. They don't have to like everything, but they should be able to withhold their own judgement of taste while sharing works with the nation. But this is clearly then a bigger problem, because not only can they not understand, but they also appear hostile and disparaging of the artists, and to those of us who gain enjoyment from the works. This infects society with negative attitudes and creates a culture of 'lowbrow' values. A society of courtiers who find it easier to criticise than to work at understanding something new and challenging. They are either too ignorant to warn the King of his lack of judgement or unwilling to accept that intelligence has emotional, perceptual and very personal dimensions.
