Kester

While reading Kester's article I came across a few points that have previously occurred to me that I was glad to see discussed. One point of his was the separation between the art world and the general public. I often feel, walking around the galleries here at school, that there is a decent amount of conceptual art that I find simply inaccessible. Without a title, blurb or explanation, I find myself ignoring work that could have a profound meaning that I'm not trained enough to see. The majority of art, it seems to me, is created by and for the art world. The general public isn't thought about when an artist desires only to self express, but the art world is expected to understand (these are all assumptions, I have not spoken to any fine artists about this topic). Im not at all against conceptual art, I actually do enjoy some pieces that speak to me, I would just appreciate it if art were made for PEOPLE and not critics. That's why I was so interested and taken aback when I read that artists in some communities were taking art direction from the public. I would love to see the fruits yielded from that harvest. Another term that caught my eye was the fetishization of authenticity. Wow. This is something, as a born and raised New Yorker/ Baltimore transplant I was very interested in. Even now, seeing the / and the words "Baltimore transplant" make my New Yorkian blood boil. From a young age the idea of authenticity, was always prominent. Though I didnt have words for it, I knew what the concept of being from New York meant. I knew that it was the best place on earth to live, it was realist/grittiest/ most authentic place to be and I knew that everyone dreamt of coming there so everything it stood for must be the best things in the world. It's interesting how these qualities are the least desirable to actually live in, but all the kids who've never known different than their white picket fence look up to it and long for it. Sophia Wang