Really Metropolitan Museum of Art, Really?? I sometimes question the "art" part.
Before I start this rant, I gotta say a few things. At the end of the day, art is really and truly what your able to get away with. I feel as if this is something that I embody and appreciate as an artist who can honestly say I've done things to test/stir up a crowd in my day. Im guilty of what my rant is about.
This piece of work (in my opinion) is garbage. What is it exactly? It's name is Spectrum V. Its 13 oversized, multi-colored canvas placed in a rainbowish, color gradient orientation. It's very soothing on the eye simply because it can easily represent the color wheel (something that we have all seen growing up). Speaking of wheel, it actually makes the full circle, where as the beginning and ending pieces of the work are yellow panels. Kids love it. Parents love it. People like it. Its easy to like. I'd even go as far as saying that this piece (due to sheer size) is quite interactive, inviting children to run along side it, take pictures in front of their favorite panel, etc. With all this said, the piece is what I would consider to be successful. But do artist like it?? I sure as fuck know one that does NOT!
What is this painting saying? I don't know what I'm supposed to get out of this. Considering the stage (metropolitan museum of art), I would assume that Mr. Kelly would take this opportunity to say something? Sure, not all art work has a statement, test your opinion, or slaps you with reality. It doesn't have to, however I feel like what it might lack in terms of visual commentary, it should make up for with technique, artistry, or visual complexity. Even if you don't understand whats going on, I'd personally be satisfied if one stands firm, hand over mouth with a "i've never shit like this before" commentary coming from a place of sheer amazement. I've seen paintings which do that. The met is FULL of them. This is not one, and takes up the MOST space.
After going to the Met consistently for the last 5+ years, I've encountered this painting countless times. It never bothered me until I started bringing friends and loved to experience these collections of works that move me so much and almost like clockwork, they would naturally gravitate to this one. I would always ask them "what about this work do you find interesting", and they never have anything really meaningful to say. It's mostly "the colors, its pretty". That answer is fine, and its valid. Is this the proper formula to get my work in the met? Paint something as simple as A + B = C, large scale and vibrant? And give off some outlandish, and personally unmeaning definition to explain the painting like, "Color here is an almost-architectural element intensifying our sense of perspective and articulating the wall as a totality"? No, I don't think its fair to works like this, and this, which all share the same roof.
Some works need an explanation of the technique used, the idea behind it, or the attempted commentary to help propel the work in the right direction because the actual work could be visually confusing, misleading or simply trying to send a covert message. Some works don't need any of that and the piece is so well designed/handled that theres nothing to be said. Just something to be experienced. This to me personally doesn't need either, furthermore just taking up valuable wall space.
Let me be fair. The painting is loved by seemingly everyone else BUT ME. I am in no way downing his craft. He creatively pushed the boundries of what art can and cant be considered as. As a farther to that, I'd tell him thank you and shake his hand. And he's clearly doing something right where as I got a long way to go just to get close to the doors of the MET. He's got mulitple paintings which are hanging somewhere I can only dream of seeing my work. Kids play with it, and its the introduction to what the art world means. It's a great way to introduce people to the boundaries of what the art world means. Let's also remember, this made it to this level without the help of social media, or the internet for that matter. I have to tip my hat and pay respects to that. I'm a firm believer in a earlier statement. Art is really the Art of getting away with shit, and I feel like he got away with this by pulling a fast one by painting canvas different colors, slapping an explanation on it and making "art" out of something that I'd confidently argue its purity. But because he was the first to do this on this level… and calls it art, and the rest of the world follows suit... then I guess its art. So congratualations Mr. Kelly. I hate this particular "work of art", and other shit you try to pull like this, but you have managed to make it happen in a way that I do envy. In this game, any publicity is good publicity. Negative of positive. So no matter how this is taken, its still positive right? Look at the length of this post.
So look at this as a Love/Hate rant.