While reading Richardson, I had trouble deciding whether or not I believed/agreed with his stance on prejudice in art. Personally, I am no art connoisseur, so it is hard to say whether or not I know how to properly critique or even appreciate art; however, this is where I determined that I disagree with Richardson. As he says in his essay on Art theory, “Neither must our own passions, or interests be allowed to give the least biast to our judgements when we are up on a National Enquiry, where all these things are entirely heterogeneous.”, we can see that Richardson felt that when making a judgement of Art, prejudice caused by our interests and passions should play not part in our judgements. I disagree.
In large, I feel that where Richardson and I really stray apart is the fact that he refers to art as entirely heterogenous. Personally, I feel that it is absolutely impossible to look at art in a not prejudiced way because art is one of many things in this world that is one hundred percent subjective. Now this doesn’t mean that I feel that there is not art that can be agreed upon as masterful work, and that there is art that can be agreed upon as shitty work. What it means is that I feel as if with art, we as humans are powerless in making an attempt at view something without letting our passions and interests making our judgement prejudice (aka unique to us).
In contemporary art, I have one particular person who really draws my attention, and that is Banksy. His piece in Bethlehem of the children sitting on the ground with a bucket and shovel and through the crack we can see a beautiful beach scene is captivating and original. I think his art his beautiful in a few different ways, both because it is atheistically pleasing, as well as the fact that most of his works speak to the viewer. This is the link to it.I think in regards to this piece, Richardson would have also felt that this piece is something that is captivating and art worthy. Though I feel as if he may have struggled to maintain his belief of keeping prejudice out of art because this type of art is meant, at least in my opinion, to draw from peoples passions and interests because Banksy creates this controversial pieces in an attempt to bring about change, or at least discussion of change.
On the other hand of contemporary art, I personally hate most “modern art”. One example that really grinds my gears is from the London Museum and it is simply three blank canvas’ all posted up next to each other. I know above, I said that art is subjective; however I feel as if the people who allowed this to be put in a museum should not only be fired, but intensely drug tested and psychiatrically evaluated. My issue with this is that art can be anything… except nothing. I think Richardson would have personally laughed at the Director of the Museum who allowed this to be exhibited because I just don’t see how anyone who appreciates art even in the least bit, can say that a canvas that has been altered in absolutely no way, is justifiably art.