Lesson Three: If we say its bad, its bad, period.

For this lesson, let us explore the concept that as a Bad Art aficionado, one finds a work of Bad Art not to be "bad", but in fact finds it good.  "That isn't bad - I' kinda of like it." is something that we often hear in the galleries of BAMOO's spacious museum.  What is one experiencing?

One is experiencing Bad Art with honest emotions - simply because something is "bad" does not mean that it is an offense to every set of eyes in the world.  There is no shame in loving Bad Art - we do it every day.

The shame, however is in thinking that because one loves a work of Bad Art that it is not bad, just misunderstood.  In this instance, the uneducated person who is not in tune with his or her honesty, feels That they have some sort of magical power within to redeem Bad Art into something legitimate.  This is a fallacy and one is mistaken if one thinks this.  One's taste is never as flawless as one thinks, unless one is objective and admits that in order to love that which is truly beautiful, one must also love that which is honestly bad.

To be honest with one's self is to admit that something can be deemed as "bad" and to love it as "bad" is a good thing.  One feel not guilty for loving bad art.  One only need feel guilty for loving that which is bland or mediocre, like Michael Bolton , or Wal-Mart, or even melba toast (unless it is a man in a dress performing ballads on stage as 'Melba Toast', "The Artiste Supreme!") - that is really an admission that one has settled for less, rather than more.

Sincerely,

The Esteemed Director

Lesson Two: Who decides if its bad?

In our last lesson we discussed how the Art Establishment isn't what it thinks that is.  With this matter cleared up, we'll discuss how art should be fun.

For far too long art has been a serious, serious affair. And we in the Bad Art movement believe that this seriousness has stifled an appreciation of art. As a result, people feel intimidated by art instead of "feeling" the art.

Art should illicit any number of reactions. And those reactions are honest as long as one allows themselves to react honestly. Now spitting at the Mona Lisa will get you arrested, but if it causes you to laugh aloud who is to say that this reaction is improper?

And so it is with Bad Art, which has been deemed such by a group of people who claim to be authorities in the matter. They have looked at a piece of art and they have reacted honestly to it and have called it bad for any number of reasons.

Earlier in the wee a work entitled Oodles the Three Legged Poodle debuted on this blog. It was certainly not the intent of the artist to paint a bad painting of Oodles. She probably went at it with the best of intentions, but something went horribly wrong, either in her perception or in her execution. What was clearly a piece of tribute art for a beloved pet is something altogether different in the end result. In the partitioning Oodles is pestered by two large blue balls, has a brassiere shaped patch of fur and three legs. The crowning glory is that Miller indicates through Oodles eyes that he is fearful of the those big blue balls.

So if Bad Art is defined as the best of intentions gone horribly wrong, shouldn't some good from it? If it brings a smile to your face, or makes you stop and consider all that is going on (or not going on) - if seeing this painting as Bad Art makes you appreciate it, then its not a failure - it is eliciting a response, and therefore it is a success.

Thus Bad Art frees you to look at a painting or sculpture and honestly say "its Bad Art and I'm not ashamed to say so."

Our next posting will be this coming Monday.

Yours in Bad Art,

The Esteemed Director, BAMOO

Lesson One: The Art Establishment

Today, after four works have been presented we instead focus on the theory behind Bad Art, and who decides what is and what is not, Bad Art.

By its very nature, the Art Establishment is not an actual establishment because organizing non-performing artists is a lot like herding cats, ergo, there can never be a true "art establishment".

As such those that form the art establishment are a bunch of self appointed elitists who exist to set the bar for what is good art, and what is everything else.  These people mock the average person on the street.  They look down their noses at the common man and woman on the street and pity them because they are certain that said people could never have the level of such exquisite tatse that they have convinced themselves that they have. 

And to these people, art is serious business.  Dreadfully serious.  So serious that art show openings have come to resemble calling hours at a funeral home, with everyone wearing black and pondering their own fate as they look at art that they may or may not like and wonder what the hell they are suppossed to be feeling at that moment.  If at a showing of a portraitists work, one will also hear the words most often heard in funeral homes: "He/She looks so life like."

But let's be honest with ourselves.  We've been to art shows and we've looked at the paintings and sculptures on display and we've said to our selves, under our breath, "I don't like it," and "It's not anything I would want in my house."  And then we just about have a heart attack when we discover that I Don't Like It is priced at more money than most of make in a year.

What these boring, and very bourgeois people forget is that art is in the eye of the beholder. 

The "Art Establishment" also don't understand that the man or woman on the street know what they like, and know what they feel is junk.   There are people out there who don't get Picasso, and never will because they think its a something Mexican that one pours over meat that gives them bad dreams at night.  To these people, a $50 starving artist paiting that goes with the davenport is more important than Jackson Pollack every did because everything that Pollack painted looks like the drop cloth after painting thier bathroom pink with purple polka dots.  And that's good enough for those people.  It may not be for you or I, but for them, thats just fine, because they have the right to love the things around them.  And you should be OK with that because it means you get to love the things that you love and think that Jackson Pollack is just fine if thats is your cup-o-tea.  But it also means that you get to look at piece of real honest to goodness art and say "Jesus! That's ugly!"  Its all good.

And if you are OK with that idea, that just drives the Art Establishment crazy.  And that is a very good thing - as this is the first step in truly be able to be honest about how art makes us feel.

So if they can do what they do, why can't we - Bad Art establishment do what we do: call them as we see them?

Our next posting of Bad Art will be this coming Monday.  Stay tuned!


Yours in Bad Art,

The Esteemed Director, BAMOO


NEXT WEEK: Who decides what bad, and why that's good.