Is It Art Or Is It Trash?

Estes Park Valley by Richard Edde


You know the art world is really screwed up when some moron artist puts a painting in a gallery of a man looking salaciously at a partially clad child. The curator of the gallery defended her decision by saying it was art. I guess her reasoning was that if something was hung on a wall in the name of art, sold in the name of art, and collected in the name of art, it must be art. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. Not so!

That painting was definitely not art, it was trash. Oh, it might be a story for the newspapers or it might even be the artist's opinion, but it is not a piece of art. Art can and sometimes, should, offend, but there must be a level of decency and that painting should offend everyone.

I am sure we would all agree that creativity is an inalienable right but the problem comes with the notion that it must be shared with others and in order to do so it is called art. These people who do so give art and ethical artists a bad name. If someone wants to create something offensive, he or she is free to do so. But when those pieces are placed in a museum or gallery and passed off as art, those of us who enjoy true art must protest loudly.

The argument is that what is offensive to one person may not be to another and it is this gray area that some artists stand behind as their defense. But here is the thing - most of us would find the painting of a man looking at a nude child as offensive, it crosses the line. Should we demand that such trash be removed from our galleries and museums?

In a word, yes.

Just paint it.