today i visited the art institute of chicago museum in chicago with my family. while in the gallery holding robert ryman pieces, three older women, probably in their late 50s or early 60s, entered and were loudly expressing their discontent with the contemporary art galleries.
‘a little of [the contemporary art] goes a long way,’ one said. ’i just can’t handle any more of these. they’re too abstract.’
now, i understand not having a taste for abstract art, but the contemporary galleries at this museum are certainly not 100% abstract or even especially ‘weird.’ 100% of this art is, however, challenging and significantly different from the 16th century religious art that adorns many of the more popular galleries in the building. in a stark contrast to these women, i enjoy the contemporary collections because, as you walk through the maze of art, one doesn’t read the plaques on the wall to merely find out what religious story is depicted or what historical figure is in the portrait. many contemporary artists engage philosophical ideas or cultural concepts in a unique way, making a point or at least highlighting a perspective that one might not, or even probably wouldn’t, otherwise consider.
obviously, art doesn’t have to be contemporary to maintain a similar role, and not all contemporary art is especially crafted for this purpose either, but i feel like it is a more prominent focus in work from the past 100 years or so. artists aren’t mostly trying to reproduce an image from reality or provide decor for churches. this has allowed physical art, such as the pieces in the previously mentioned museum, to touch newer and tougher concepts.
(i realize that none of this is a new idea, but it’s what i’ve been thinking about today.)
