Thank you for your words. I do agree and I see your point. It’s difficult not to think in terms of beauty when we’re in the realm of art. I used to have the same attitude towards architecture for instance: many contemporary buildings are beyond aesthetics and — believe me — I struggled a lot to accept why beauty and composition shouldn’t not be taken into account in the most recent architecture. I eventually accepted it. Maybe I wasn’t up to date, maybe I don’t know what happened but I really believed that composition rules and some kind of beauty matter.
I found this explanation, and that is that c.a. needs (in many cases) the observer to be part of the artwork in order to be activated. You’re right saying that me and you, as observers, should deserve an acknowledgment, even thought we should separate good and bad contemporary art. It’s true that you cannot judge c.a. throw the glasses of classic art, but it’s also true that many of us keep a peculiar point of view. Being italian and being accustomed to beautiful things I tend to consider everything from this point of view. Reverberate with a work of art means also find some kind of connection with it and that cannot be just an intellectual one. That’s why I always push myself to try to understand c.a. but often I simply reject it. Sometimes they’re just ugly things and I don’t want to waste my time.
I think that we might agree on many things and probably we’re already doing it.
PS: I’m sorry for the paywall. I’m trying it and I think that, after hundreds of articles, maybe I deserve a little compensation. It’s a passion but why it’s got always to be free? It’s also very cheap.