Art is Art is Art

Art is art, or it isn’t, why is it always necessary to categorize it ad infinitum?

The Metropolitan Museum has 17 departments the majority of which are art departments of one kind or another. A few of these include the Department of European Art, the American Wing, Ancient Near East, Arms and Armor, Asian Art, and the Costume Institute. Only recently has the Director, Max Holien, suggested that these fiefdoms cooperate with each other and “cross-fertilize” (my words) and have them possibly share their collections.

These departments include various sections and to pick on one, the American Wing includes Native American art together with American decorative arts, and paintings from the 17th through the 19th century. If the work is more recent it goes to another department that of Modern and Contemporary art.

There used to be a department of primitive art, and I am happy to tell you that today it is known as the Department of the Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Some of it you might refer to as indigenous, so why was Native American art recently moved to the American Wing? It seems rather arbitrary to me.

Your head may already be spinning with all these categories but in recent times it seems we need to create new categories… Women Artists, Black Artists, and an even newer one Queer Artists. Different groups may or may not have their own style, different from one and another but as I said in the first place, art is art… or not. That IS subjective. You can have it all in one by artist Sarah Huny Young who is a Black, Female, Queer Photographer.

My family is Jewish but my father, who was in the art business his entire life said, “There is no such thing as Jewish art, it is either art or it is not!”. The first thing I would think of when I hear the name Louise Nevelson would not be that she is Jewish! This is her “Classic Column” (1967) at the Jewish Museum, New York.

I thought the idea of art was a means of expression where individuals could deliver their message in their own way. None the less we seem to have a need to pigeonhole everything we deal with.

If you want to make a point about diversity, that is great, but do it by comparison. In the same gallery put works of art, from religious objects to portraits, that relate to each other but come from various cultures created by a Black Artist, White Artists, Female Artists, and Queer Artists. Let the viewer see a difference, if there is one. Personally, I think it is insulting to have an exhibition of works by just one group, pigeonholed ethnically or worse sexually. Why is that necessary? If I were an artist, I would want to be identified as such without qualification.

If the curator feels it is important to explain something that will enhance the viewer's understanding of the work of art that information can go on the label, not be the theme of the presentation, be it in an exhibition or a museum gallery.

I don’t believe the idea of DEI is to separate one from the other but to bring them together as one, that goes for art as well as people.

If a curator is trying to teach how beading is different in various cultures, show beadwork from them. For instance, you might show a pair of moccasins by a Native American (Sioux circa 1900 at the Gilcrease Museum) and one from Nigeria (circa 1978 at the Fowler Museum, UCLA). If we don’t compare how can we learn the differences and maybe more important, the similarities.