Art

Recently I found myself in a mild argument with a friend who is an artist. I made some comment which questioned the talent of Andy Warhol, an artist who's one of my friend's favorite. I also mentioned that I thought Norman Rockwell was great, which earned a rolling of my artist friend's eyes. I suppose I looked rather like a philistine, a bumpkin of the art world. After all Warhol was a conceptual visionary. Rockwell just painted magazine covers. The argument didn't change the way I feel, though. It did, however, get me thinking about how I really judge art. Why doesn't Warhol blow my mind? Is his work "over my head?" Why would I rather look at Rockwell's stuff? Here's what I think.
     There are two main things to consider when it comes to appreciating art: Vision and Execution. Vision is the idea, the concept, the point. Execution is the actual painting, sculpting, writing, directing, playing. Both are important. I, however, value the execution of art far more than the vision. It's my own preference and to me it's more important. It's not out of the realm of possibility that I could conceive the idea to put three photos of Elvis together, or to do a big print of Mao. I could also come up with the idea of painting baseball umpires standing in the rain, an image in one of Rockwell's most famous pieces. The diffference is that while I could construct somekind of crude replica of a Wahhol piece, I couldn't come close to painting Rockwell's piece, even with practice. True artistic talent, in my book, lies in an artist's ability to execute his art at a remarkable level. I can criticize someone like Warhol on both his vision and execution. I can say that his ideas weren't that good, and that his art doesn't look that good either. But take the ceilling of the Sistine chapel. I can criticize the concepts, but it is indisputable that Michelangelo's artwork is skillfully painted.   I could perhaps think of a better physique than David, but could never sculpt him so perfectly.
     These are my views when it comes to paintings, sculptures, and the like. When it comes to movies and books I think the vision counts for a little more. For example, in Keroac's "On the Road" there's nothing wrong with the writing, but the book, to me, said very little. Similarly, many films offer beautiful scenery, but a poor story.
     So maybe there is a good reason that I like Rockwell more than Warhol. I've always liked Rockwell's style as I'm a sucker for Americana and the "good ol' days." But it's his impressive talent with a paint brush that strikes me deepest, something that I've never seen in Warhol. ....And of your wondering what I think of totem poles, I think they stand on their own.