about art (for michael lewis)

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I enjoyed your editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It is clear and, though I am familiar with the theme, it's important to keep pointing out how messed up art (and especially art schools) are today.

The young woman's "miscarriage art" is merely a natural progression of "deathart," though I liked how you poked fun at her slightly out of date deconstructionism (or whatever she might call it).

My wife was a professional avante-garde dancer (Trisha Brown's group) and I am a painter and novelist. Like all parents we have cheered our kids' (draw! act! play music!) creativity in their pre-college education, though I cringe at the thought that one of my sons may actually want to go to art school. Despite having spent a lot of time being angry at my own father's discouragement of my interest in art, I can't help feeling like him now as I suggest to my sons: how about a field related to theater, like, um, marketing?

I have friends that teach art in colleges, The Art Institute of Chicago, among others. Knee-jerk left wingers all, I recently heard one actually berate the "politically correct environment" among the teachers who won't allow any discussion of beauty (hopelessly old fashioned concept) but concern themselves with their mission to "save the planet" -- a do-gooder variation of death art (the earth is dying, how can you care about beauty over recycling?).

The reason I'm writing is that I have yet to see someone connect the dots between (1) art schools and their deathartists and dated deconstructionism, and (2) museums that have educated the "masses" away from pleasing lifeart, and (3) the decline of the "middle class" art buying market.

My premise (as an "old fashioned painter") is that the average person has been alienated from art by all these theories (mostly recycling endlessly) that art is about upsetting the bourgeoise, shaking us out of our stupor, etc. This has not happened in music, for example, where people "like what they like" and are rarely intimidated that they should like something more edgy or political.

People don't buy art anymore unless they're (1) serious collectors [and though I know a fair number of wealthy people I know none of these]; (2) "tough" contrarians -- who like what they like [flower, clowns, landscapes, etc.]. The "market" for thoughtful, contemporary, but non-deathart is very small partially because people have been "shamed" to stuff their taste. It's either "high brow" (global, deathart, environmental and political art) or "low brow" (art fairs, Walmart art factory, etc.).

Did people ever really support painters like the fabled streets of Paris where you could once buy a Picasso? I suspect middle and upper class people used to buy art. My parents, God bless their souls, actually bought art on the streets of Paris in the 1960s, but it the faux-impressionist landscapes and cityscapes deeply embarrassed this young "rebel" who idolized Andy Warhol and, yes, Duchamp.

There is a contrarian movement proudly calling themselves Lowbrow (or Pop Surrealist, etc.). Juxtapoz Magazine seems key in this, though I personally like only a small percentage of what they capture under their net, which includes graffiti and tattoos. I think it's somewhat of a good sign that some of music's I like what I like will spill over into art, though I could do without all the "rebel edge" that this worlds seems to think is its core.

In any case, keep up the good work. I've ordered one of Mr. Rieff's books.