An amazingly brief but handy overview of Art for regular folk.

Remember when art was a part of everyday life? Remember when art was a fun pastime enjoyed by people of all ages? Remember the days when you determined what you liked and what hung in your home?

Since the dawn of human history art has been part of our lives. We didn’t necessarily own the art, but, we had an appreciation and understanding of the art that permeated our world. But, for the past four decades a few elite institutions and galleries have been able to dictate what art is, and what we must like.  Although there is no agreement on the definition of art the artistic elite will declare with all certainty that "Art is important". Of course, the more they can keep art a mystery the more control their hold over art tastes. Well, since art belongs to everyone it’s about time we learn how to take art back.

There had always been three main purposes for the visual arts:

1. Communication - the broad use of art in advertisement, entertainment and propaganda

2. Documentation - the recording of history, cultural events and an individual’s issues.

3. Decoration - style, fashion and how we decorate our homes.

We all know what we like, though we may not be able to say why. To like and/or appreciate art in general you need little formal education. But, to understand a particular piece of art, a style or technique takes more education, and there’s the start of our problems with art, today.

Imagine yourself as a farmer in the Dark Ages of Europe. You would be toiling in a field from sun up until sunset to eke out enough to sustain your family and pay the taxes to the local lord. On Sunday you and your family would attend the local church where the preacher’s sermons were brought to life through the art that adorned the chapel. Art was inspirational! You knew what the artist was trying to convey because the art was the counterpart of the words of the clergyman. For centuries, public art was commissioned by the powerful in order to convey ideas. Art communicated common symbolism and imagery understood by everybody. The art itself was still owned by the rich and powerful until the 19^th century when printmaking made owning art possible to a much wider audience. The general prosperity created in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution made art, in one form or another, available to almost everyone. We all had some sort of art on our walls - silhouettes, phots, prints and small paintings. And our furniture, clothing, pottery, appliances, etc. all reflected our personal tastes. So, what changed?

When Impressionistic painting was first introduced to the public it was looked upon as an abomination. It was not immediately understood or appreciated by the art lovers or critics of the day. It took a few years to catch on, and now Impressionist art is among the most highly sought after by collectors of fine art. It is also loved by those less versed in art history and appreciation, because the imagery is generally pleasing and understandable. The artists’ personal reasons enhance (but are not paramount) to the prominence of Impressionism in the Fine Arts world or to the general public. But even as the Impressionists were changing the way we looked at art, there was one irrefutable fact- art is a business.

Over thirty years ago Tom Wolfe wrote a treatise on modern art entitled, "The Painted Word". (It is still one of the best and easiest understood studies of what happened to the arts and the modern art world.) He came to the realization that it was no longer necessary to create art that had any representation or commonly understood symbolism. The artist’s personal study was more important that what was established by, well, anyone outside of the artist’s little circle. Even the creative process was more important than the resulting image. Artists with little or no formal art education (or even any apparent talent) could become the darlings of the artworld as long as they had a new and clever spiel that appealed to the Art Powers That Be. As a consequence, the traditional had not only become passe, it had become something to ridicule. Of, course, to the rest of us, images and underlying meanings were still important. We didn’t have to like something in order to appreciate it. And, we didn’t need to be able to give a dissertation on a piece of art in order to like it. Our tastes were our own.

It is said that a picture is worth ten thousand words. But doesn't one still needs to understand the underlying symbolism  in order to understand the picture?  One of today'ws art world’s axioms is art doesn’t have to have a meaning for it to be an important piece of art. This concept should raise a few questions, such as, "If art doesn’t mean anything, what is it’s relevance to me? Why should I care if that art even exists? If a particular piece of art doesn’t have a meaning, how can the artistic elite look down upon the public who finds no significance in it?"

Artists will always create art. That doesn’t mean the public will embrace that art. But, due to a handful of government programs such as the WPA or the NEA, the artistic elite have come to believe the government has an obligation to fund the arts in general and the creation of their art in particular. This begs the question - If art is no longer a reflection of social values or tastes, why should it be publicly funded? The rationale is that it exposes us to new art.  Of course, if most of that art has no meaning why publicize it at all.  And, why can’t we think about art that is not offensive, irrelevant or purposely arcane.

Do you remember the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibition, "Sensations". There were lots of pieces that were not just puzzling to the average person, they were downright insulting. The art snobs declared that canceling the show or cutting funding would be tantamount to curtailing the artists’ freedom of speech. (Side question: If the artist had nothing to say, how is he exercising his freedom of speech?) But the "Sensations" exhibit had nothing to do with the artists’ rights. All of the artwork was owned by the Saatchi family that used the exhibition for publicity and to jack up the prices of the art for an upcoming auction. I’m sure the Saatchi family reimbursed this fine use of public funding.

Manhattan galleries are in the business of selling art. They could not care less if you understand or appreciate the art hanging in their establishments. Museums are in the business of educating and entertaining the public and making money (after all, they don’t give you posters and books for free).  The Metropolitan Museum of Art has devoted about twenty times the space to selling art and art related products than it did thirty years ago (not the mention satellite stores and on-line shopping).

Artists want to create their "personal" art, but they want the art connoisseurs to appreciate it (by buying it, of course). And, despite the lofty rhetoric of artists, they do put monetary values on their artwork, which makes it another product subject to all the rules of the marketplace. Marketing tries to convince a consumer to buy something based on need or want. When it comes to art we should buy what we like or want, not what others tell us to buy. In the final analysis our personal tastes dictate want we bring into our homes. We need to separate the art of the elite from the art that actually means something to us. We need to be proud of our own choices and not be cowed by the artistic elite. We all have viewed a piece of artwork in a "progressive" gallery that was completely incomprehensible to us. If a "curator" actually deigned to speak with us, we were told that it was a great work of art, that it was "important" (this is amusing when you consider the artist’s claim that his art means nothing or that it is up to the viewer to determine meaning). When we asked why it is great or important, we were often look at as if we are completely unrefined and ignorant. After a few decades of this kind of attitude it is small wonder that the general public no longer feels the appeal of museums, galleries and art, in general.

There is a small movement back to making art part of the lives of us regular people. I am part of this movement. I have always created art in the form of paintings, drawings, sculpture, photography, jewelry and functional objects. I needed a place to display and sell my work, and to connect with other artists. I also wanted to do something for the community. Almost thirty years ago I stumbled onto a hidden gem in the Queens artworld – the Alliance of Queens Artists or AQA.  It's a community-minded organization dedicated to bringing art back to the public. I am now the executive director of the Alliance, and pushing to expand the mission of promoting the creation of the visual arts in Queens and the appreciation of the arts of all the cultures therein. The AQA Gallery is a user-friendly atmosphere where the public can view and learn about art. From young students to senior citizens exploring art builds self-confidence, pride, an appreciation for art and a respect for the cultures and heritages of others. We are one of the only opportunities for local artists to exhibit, to share or to discuss their work. Our gallery, located in the heart of Queens, is a place for artists to meet, learn, display, network and discuss the arts with other artists and an interested public. We exhibit year-round in our gallery and in other public spaces such as banks, hospital lobbies, libraries, restaurants and in several "virtual galleries" in our user-friendly website. Artists want to network with other artists and learn about opportunities, new ideas and techniques. Our artists, who represent the cultural and artistic diversity of our borough, inform others through exhibits, lecture series, art workshops and demonstrations throughout Queens. Local artists can be the chroniclers of our culture and history. A successful community-based organization has a willingness to share information with the public and each other. It must resonate with the public and be part of it.
You won’t like everything in the AQA Gallery, but you will like some of it. After all, it does reflects the vast diversity of our city. And, with time, you may learn to appreciate and even like some more of the differences. But, in order to do so, you need to start with art that you like!

• R.H. Menzel - sculptor, curator, executive director of the AQA