A pet peeve and a related story:
I hate hate hate it when people see a piece of seemingly simple art – let’s say, a painting – and claim that they “could have done that.” (This absurd claim is usually preceded with an audible scoff – usually a “pfft” or a “psh.")
1) In most cases, the piece of art has some complexity that the untrained eye (mine included) cannot see. There is something stylistic, some sort of balance, some artsy something or other that makes the ignoramus's claim just plain untrue.
2) Secondly, independently, and, I think, more importantly, there stands the fact that the person in question did not, in fact, create the piece of art. This is as important as it is obvious.
An easy counter to the “I could have done that” would be:
“Oh yeah? Well, you didn’t. You did not draw that orange blob and place it curiously to the left of that black square. You did not roll around in paint and smear yourself over that canvas. You did not throw up on that easel and pass it off as art.
Could do (potential) and did do (taking a risk, creating) are worlds apart, and one cannot claim another’s artwork (reality) by virtue of their own self-proclaimed potential (fantasy).
The story:
So I find myself at an art gallery in my neighborhood. I do not, as admitted previously, have a keen eye for art. But there was a painting that caught my attention from the moment I walked in. It was hanging horizontally, about 2’’ by 4’’. It caught my eye not because of what I saw on it, but what I didn’t. It was, for all practical purposes, blank. Upon closer inspection, I made out some faint grey lines, and it did have a peach-ish tint.
I look at the label below it.
“Absence of Tigers.”
The pricetag: $600.
And as I stood there, I thought:
Genius.
