Last week, Chinese crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun purchased his latest investment for 6.2 million dollars at an auction in New York City. This investment was a real, ripe, yellow banana duct taped to a gallery wall. This viral and controversial artwork premiered in 2019; a piece entitled “Comedian” by Italian visual artist Maurizio Cattelan. Primarily due to its astounding price tag, spectators fled to social media in a frenzy of bemusement or anger, or both. Was this artwork worth the money, or even tangibly art at all, were crucially raised questions. After all, anyone can buy tape and fruit from the supermarket for less than the price of the entry ticket to the gallery, let alone more money than the average person will make in their entire lifetime. However, the cost of materials does not necessarily inform the value of the artwork. In fact, after his purchase, Sun ate the banana in front of the gallery’s audience, potentially proving its value as an art piece never existed in its physicality, but maybe in its message? This entire story baffled me at first, however it did provoke an interesting debate as to what art is in the first place, but more specifically, what makes art “good”?
In my eyes, there are three main branches to an average art viewer’s judgment process. That is accounting for the skill required to create the piece, it’s beauty and aesthetic quality, and finally its emotive value. Beauty may be subjective, but in one’s own mind it is easily and often immediately recognisable. When walking through a gallery it may be the strange and twisted, but more widely the beautiful that catches your eye. For me, aesthetic art primarily consists of natural imagery such as Monet’s landscapes, as well as bold, optimistic colour palettes of the likes of Van Gogh’s sunflowers. I’ve more than once overheard a comment along the lines of “I’d hang that in my home” when perusing the Tate or National Gallery. You may find beauty in the strange and twisted, exemplified in Tim Burton’s filmography, however this love for and value placed upon his art is based mainly in his gothic aesthetic and many of his films such as “Edward Scissorhands” have become cult classics.
Earlier this year, I visited my younger cousin during the holidays. Met with a long-awaited excitement, she proudly handed me her latest nursery drawing of the two of us together. Bursting with vivid rainbow scribbles, it may not have required great artistic training or reminisced a specific aesthetic movement, however, I absolutely loved it because of its emotional value to me. Thus, emotivity is incredibly important in art. This is not to say that there must be a personal connection to the artist, art or subject itself, but rather that if an art piece can make you feel something, it may be considered “good” art, successful in its design. A piece that will always make me emotional is Frida Kahlo’s “The Wounded Deer”, depicting Kahlo’s face with the body of a fawn pierced entirely by blood-drawing arrows. Whilst personal interpretations may vary, the image of harm and hurt and explicitly violent theme to the painting conjures sadness and urgency in viewers. The simple fact that a painting hung on a wall can make a spectator stop and feel an emotional connection to the artist or evoke a feeling within them just by passing by is incredible.Â
Skill level often comes hand in hand with an evocation of astonishment in spectators, an initial shock factor. Famously, this may include work by the likes of Michelangelo, the awe-inducing ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Modern art, therefore, has become much less accessible as it becomes more abstract and the Renaissance obsession with hyper realistic detailing has been replaced by implicit politicised meaning in art. For example, Damien Hirst’s “Death in the Mind of Someone Living”, a real tiger shark suspended in formaldehyde left audiences perplexed. However, art critics have attributed symbolism of terror, fear, and connotations of the Romantic sublime. Art- based degree students will tell you that meaning can be found in any symbol if you look hard enough. So, is meaning crafted by the artist or the viewer? Since art is subjective, one is permitted endlessly unique interpretations of a work, in spite of or in tandem with the artist’s potentially political intentions. Regardless, it would be reasonable to assume a generalised preference for the “Cycle of Frescoes” in terms of intricacy and traditional artistic training. Anyone having attended a British primary school has tried their hand at the odd acrylic or watercolour and is thus more likely to compare and venerate their skill level in contrast to such grandure, whereas formaldehyde is a more elusive and feasibly teachable process (irrespective of inherent artistic talent versus skill) despite a recognisable originality in Hirst’s portfolio.
So, is “Comedian” really any good, following these outlined principles. I would argue that successful art is accessible. In all these cases, the viewer feels connected to the art whether that be out of respect, admiration, or emotion. Critics and art lovers may search for meaning in more abstract pieces like the banana or, in a similar vein, Michael Craig Martin’s “An Oak Tree” (literally a glass of water on a shelf) and take joy in this, I believe that if the general public are more confused than inspired to settle on a personal interpretation, the art is thus too inaccessible to evoke any of the above.