Now that the cultural phenomenon that was The Metropolitan Museum Of Art's installation of Alexander McQueen's fashions, some questions come to mind, age old questions like: what is art and is it relevant and how many people seeing (or hearing or watching) something equals greatness? No answers exist, of course--or more accurately, endless postulations exist with no final decisions possible, except person by person. So this person asks them--and tries to give some answers. (Which anyone can take or leave, naturally.)
To cheat a bit, art is anything someone considers art. Hardly Earth-shattering. And I am thrilled a museum considers clothing design art. "Design" implies artistry. No question, McQueen was an artist. But is that why people liked his work? Really, with no excuses, how many people went because the man was famous for putting clothes on rich, exciting, fabulous people who showed up at well documented events wearing something he put his name on? I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing--but I fear it is not a particularly good one either. Worth, skill, originality are not in the vocabulary of most of the people waiting hours in line. They wanted to see up close what they've seen on TV. They probably couldn't give a damn about anything else in the building. The prevalent wisdom is that exposure to the other pieces that were on view to the hordes in line would somehow make them want to come back. Right. How many will that mean? 100? Sure, it's good for the 100 but does it further any kind of knowledge about anything else than celebrity to the 99.99999% of the remaining viewers? Isn't that what this is--the cult of the celebrity? I guess it could be argued that seeing a Michelangelo sculpture is just a variation on the same. Probably. Still, it's depressing. What if someone named Skidder had carved David? Would we recognize its greatness? My guess: no. And what about all those artists who are no longer being taught in schools because they won't appear on any tests? Is their art now lessened? Since fewer and fewer people are learning who, I don't know, Thomas Eakins was, will his work eventually disappear from the higher institutions? And what about his 'nameless' contemporaries? Sure, museums hang some of them, but for how long? The Alexander McQueens of the world will always pull in bigger crowds. With dwindling funds, fewer donors, fewer visitors, how long before smaller places only hang 'crowd pleasers' to pay the bills? The Met will go on without the enormous crowds...they already get enormous crowds, even on days between exhibits. But the past is becoming less and less a part of our education system. People aren't encouraged to know, or care, about anything that is not disposable or popular on some electronic device. I would guess most of my relatives have no idea who Thomas Eakins was. This is tragic to me. Eakins was an influential, talented man. They would like his art, I have no doubt. But fewer people in the world saw his work than Alexander McQueen's one summer in 2011, probably even if you counted all the people who went to all the museums where Eakins is displayed. And saddest of all? Just how many people cared?
