i used to go the met a lot when i was younger, but i guess i never really undrstood most of the art. sure i was fascinated by the egyptian mummies, extravagant costumes of the Sun King period, and Van GOgh's self portrait, but i never really looked closely. the last time i was there was last summer and that was the time when i started to appreciate the art and its history. there are certaintly favored ones, but i learned to appreciate others that I used to walk pass without a second glance. the modern art section was a new experience for me. Due to the fact that the art department of UB is so "conceptual", and focuses on PO-Mo and neo-expressionism, i can say that i learned some stuff and is more open to the ideas. even though some paintings like Rothko's big canvas of black paint still puzzles me.
my friend and i also got into the discussion of how a work/painting is considered art or even good. lets say i handed in a simple black & white painting to my art professor; the painting is titled "corns" and it had a big foot with a bandaid on it and the word "corn" written on top in black paint. what grade will i recieve? it's a decent contour line drawing, but i wouldn't say it's spectacular. my friend said "maybe a D, or they might think it's a joke"...but in an art setting (aka the metropolitan museum of art) it is considered a masterpiece and admired by thousands of people everyday. whereas if i made it, i get stuck with a D, and be regarded as a joker.
