These Articles are written for the Cook Islands News, the daily newspaper of the Cook Islands.
Paul Gauguin
Teha'amana
1891
Once upon a time art was mainly created to pay tribute to a god, tell a story or to decorate,
and it’s meaning was obvious to the members of the culture.
During the last century, art and art forms have developed all over the world in so many new
directions, that it would be arrogant to demand that art ought to be understood without introduction.
Art critics, art historians, curators and artists are supposed to enlighten and inform us, but
unfortunately, eye-opening introductions are not too common. Instead of communicating, they
often fill our heads with complicated, trendy jargon that confuses and intimidates us enough to
be too scared to ask questions.
Subjective stuff
But to be fair to the interpreters of art, translating visual art into words isn’t easy. Most art works
have more than one meaning and much is to be “read between the lines”. Add to this difficulty,
the fact that how a work of art looks like, and what it means to me, is not the same for you.
Art is not objective, and the condition that it can be seen in different ways is fascinating - but it’s
also a real challenge to anyone trying to explain a piece of art, without misleading or spoiling it
for other viewers.
Some works just appeal to us and we don’t necessarily need to figure out why we enjoy them.
Other pieces seem strange, without a theme, without a recognizable pattern, without… here we go,
listing all the things that we cannot find, and this is precisely why we don’t like a piece of art:
we can’t find what we expect, know or understand. But often, works like these can open up a
new perspective, if we take a little time to let them speak to us.
Finding the evidence
The best approach to unfamiliar or challenging works is positive critique: trying to find out what
is there by going close, stepping back, looking again and if possible, asking the artist what was
intended. Of course it’s much easier to lament over what is not there, and this is probably where
the term “art critique” originated.
Prominent art critics of all ages have taken great pride in verbally ripping works and artists apart, impressing the public with their authority and knowledge - only to be proved wrong a few years later, when the shunned works have become recognized as new masterpieces. Many of the great heroes of art weren’t accepted in their lifetime. Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin were either not known or ridiculed by the critics and curators, while they quietly changed the course of art history.
Paul Cézanne, Still life with Watermelon, 1906
Vincent Van Gogh, The Starry Night, 1889
Paul Gauguin, Teha'amana, 1891
Destructive influences
Unlike positive critique, negative judgment can do a lot of harm to artists, and we have to ask ourselves, why some critics/historians and unfortunately also fellow artists indulge in it. The obvious answer is: competition.
Trendy art critics jealously defend the champions of the current fashion, and many artists can’t
see beyond their own perception, regardless of the true nature of art, which is to reflect,
demonstrate and celebrate our cultural and individual differences.
What’s new?
Some artists develop their ideas and techniques together, many explore the possiblities and
variations of a current theme or style, and there are always some who go their own way.
But however they go about it, it usually takes them a few years to develop their work.
Yet the public is demanding a brand-new experience every time they go to an exhibition opening.
Fair enough, but instead of expecting something new at first sight, we should look deeper,
ask more questions, and take an interest in the development of the artists working in our community.
This would encourage artistic growth, progress of thought and technique for the artists, and better
information and appreciation of art for the public.