my night with Zach

Last night I got into a heated discussion about the merits of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's work (surprisingly, it wasn't me who introduced them into the conversation), although it was pretty much about all conceptual and site-specific art. This, with a guy who not only looked just like Zach Galifianakis, but actually worked as a volunteer on one Christo and Jeanne-Claude's works! He doesn't see the value of just about any and all art created after the Impressionists, claiming art in the 20th and now 21st Centuries, particularly of the conceptual and/or abstract kind, is self indulgent and needlessly complicated. As a traditional painter, he praised (and rightfully so) the work of 19th Century painters such as Manet and Goya because they "painted with their hearts" and believes the best art should hit the viewer on a basic level and not be buried in meaning, symbolism, concepts, or high-minded ideas. Noble perhaps, but completely ridiculous. How frustrating and futile a conversation this was! And it's his kind of fatalist, negative attitude that frustrates the most.

Anyway, today I noticed that what I failed to realize during this intense, alcohol-fueled, needless debate was just how easily I could have refuted his obscene hypothesis by simply pointing to the obvious: Art is basically one's commentary on one's life experiences and the world around us, right? And life can be the simplest yet most complicated thing in the universe. And so, as a reflection of of it all, shouldn't art be both simple and complicated. All the best art is... really. Think about it.

Is this post as pointless as last night's conversation? Probably. But then, it's just as essential.