For those bored of science based posts...

I was pondering why I have an aversion to a lot of modern art. This was partly prompted by a talk at college by Roger Hiorns the Turner Prize nominated artist who filled an old council flat with copper sulphate solution leaving some stunning blue crystals on all the surfaces. How we managed to get a relatively well know artist to talk at one of the organic electronics group meetings is another story! I was also reminded of a pub conversation some months ago, which is normally the only time I have to think about such things.

Art in my opinion has to achieve two things. Firstly it has to be something that appeals to you emotionally through its beauty, ability to inspire awe or simply juxtaposition with its surroundings to give a few examples. Secondly it should have some deeper level of meaning that goes beyond the purely technical skills used in its creation that makes the viewer think, such as what the person in a portrait is contemplating or what a particular object might represent metaphorically. The problem arises (in my mind anyway) when the explanation of the artist's motives and the piece's meaning must be spelt out on a card next to the artwork. I have no objection to reading about the art to find out more but if I get nothing from just looking at it then it defeats the point. Often these explanations are very interesting and certainly thought-provoking which satisfies my second criterion, but it should be able to stand on its own. Let's take two of Roger Hiorns works as examples: Seizure (the copper sulphate flat) and Atomised Passenger Aircraft Engine (a pile a metal dust on the floor of the Tate). The first I liked a lot the second less so. For a start Seizure was truly beautiful and it needed no explanation to make you look at an old dilapidated flat in a completely different way, especially given the unattractiveness and blandness of the surroundings. Atomised Passenger Aircraft Engine on the other hand was just some dust that could well have been created by some careless workmen in the Tate for all the viewer knows. Until of course you are informed of its title and you find out how it was created. Once this is known it becomes interesting and satisfies criterion (ii) and maybe even (i), but since there are no clues to this in the actual piece I would go so far as to say it should not be classified as art.

So there we go, maybe a problem in definitions but then I enjoy art as I have stated it above - emotionally and mentally engaging and importantly self-contained. I appreciate that one can create an interesting work that says something on several levels but if it evokes no emotional or mental response without some further understanding of the creator's emotions and thoughts then it needs to be called something other than art.

(Photo of Seizure by aliceson)