One has to remember that Picasso was one of the first modern artists to
use the media to shape acceptance of his work. Still, it was a long time
before 'contemporary' art was accepted as worthy of collecting.

Asking the question "what is art?" opens a huge abyss of debate--as will
on the question of "if" art can "stand on its own." For example, the
motivations which led to the Armoury Show, and the successive tidal wave
of support and detraction, make what happens when art world fault-line
finally slips into the media and public attention. At that Armoury Show,
the works there were not accepted by any of the existing major
museums--but many are now the mainstay of those same museums.

The NEA and NEH can be targets of Repulican mortar-fire, as they are by
the neo-nazi Christian Right. In the wake of a smoke cloud from such a
successful barrage, would be acceptance of an artistic banality like the
1930's Nazi German pap.

Of course, when the "great masters" were working, weren't there other
artists who were being excluded in those mono-lithic structures of
support and acceptance? Does "official art" leave room for art "to stand
on its own?"

Dave Wells
Olympia WA

_________________________
JHANDLEY wrote:
>
> The idea that a work of art should "stand on its own," is certainly a
> nice one, isn't it? Then again, such a notion reveals the canyon
> between theory and practice that museum's face every day. Let's face
> it folks, the Picasso-looking painting that the neighbor kid painted
> will ever be as important as the Picasso that Picasso himself painted.
> And, there are great arguments on both sides of the canyon.
>
>      John Handley
>