If everything is art, then nothing is art.
by Vikash kalra
Since World War I art lovers have grown accustomed to viewing what we call “modern art.” Modern art fills our museums, our schools, our magazines, even jump out of our television sets.
Furthermore, modern artists—beginning with Matisse and Picasso and continuing through Pollock to the present—have pressured us to deny the evidence of our own senses. We have been taught to believe that these modernists are the most brilliant artists in all of history.
They haven’t told us lies like traditional painters—they tell us the truth. They do not paint scenes rooted in reality or the imagination. They tell it like it is. They give us something that is not banal, silly, or inane. Or even beautiful. It is a greater truth.
But what is that great truth, you ask?
Incredible as it may seem, modern artists have simply proved that the canvas is flat—flat and thin—and lacking in depth.
Look at Picasso’s paintings. They have been called masterpieces, and are supposed to elicit an emotion by the viewer. But do they? Frankly, they leave me (and many other art lovers) cold.
Where is the reality, the beauty? Where is the depth of field, the perspective? It simply does not exist in “modern art.”
Picasso created works in which the forms and shaped do not align or create any cohesive form. In fact, Picasso rejected all prior artistic standards. At best, they are Rorschach inkblots.
You have to be taught to love Picasso because no one would do so otherwise.
But people don’t have to be taught to love Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Chopin, Beethoven, or even Tom Sawyer.
The point is, when everything can be considered art, then nothing is art.
Vikash Kalra is a self-taught artist and writer based in New Delhi whose work has been exhibited across India and is held in several private and corporate collections.