Take it, it's good for you!

Kids receiving their daily dose of cod-liver oil from a teacher

Kids used to be forced to take Cod Liver oil because experts said it was good for you. It has been described as having the intense and obnoxious odor of rotten fish and rancid oil.

Sometimes I think connoisseur's are doing the same thing when they make the general public look at art they don't like. They feel it is their responsibility to educate those whose tastes are not as advanced. In schools, galleries and museums I can accept that argument; but not in hospitals.

It is wrong to make people in hospitals look at art that they don't like. There are enough other unpleasant things going on that to increase discomfort. We don't need to add art to the list.

It is very clear what people don't like. This has been studied hundreds of times in countries all over the world. Regular people don't like abstract art. You can see this illustrated by clicking here.

This post was prompted by listening to a new CD that I just bought: Gloria Cheng's Piano Music of Salonen, Stucky & Lutoslawski. After I was half-way through the disc I realized I was listening to it because it was good for me, not because I enjoyed it. Perhaps in time I will learn to appreciate it, but meanwhile I switched to Scarlatti: Keyboard Sonatas played by Andras Schiff. Within seconds of putting it on I started to feel more relaxed. The dogs even came back into the room...

Note: These days people still take Cod Liver oil, but usually in gel caps labeled as alpha-3 Omega. The gel caps do a pretty good job of hiding the disgusting smell.

Comments

[Daniel Sroka]

As someone who creates a lot of abstract art, I obviously don't buy the idea that all abstract art is like cod liver oil, something that forced on "regular people". It's just not as simple as abstract is bad, and realistic is good. I've seen abstract art that I hate, and abstract art that moves me. I've seen realistic art that is beautiful, and realistic art that is trite and overly nostalgic. The quality and appropriateness of an artpiece goes well beyond the simple category it sits in.

[Henry Domke]

Daniel,
I agree with you. I've oversimplified to make my point.
To lump all abstract art into one big lump just does not fit with the real world.

However, if you look at the many studies that have been done on preferences, abstract art is at the bottom.

Also, regarding your art, I know you are calling it "abstract", but in fact you are showing objective photographs of the nature. You explore shallow depth of focus and very tight framing to pull out the patterns, textures and colors found in nature.

In a sense you are "abstracting" nature, pulling out the most important features of your subject, but that does not make them purely abstract. At least not the way I understand the word.