The news that a child damaged a £42m Mark Rothko painting at a museum in Rotterdam last month had me wondering how I’d feel if my toddler was the culprit.
Probably delighted to have material for yet another tedious 'Look, I've reproduced, worship me!' column...
This story has brought out two categories of people that I’ll admit I struggle with: people who don’t get the work of Mark Rothko, and people who dislike kids.
Oh, give me strength….
...it’s the usual calls for children to be banned from public spaces. They shouldn’t be allowed into galleries if they can’t behave, and their parents should be made to pay – that sort of thing.
And you can see why!
Children respond instinctively to art. They have not built up defences, or preconceptions about it, and the earlier you take them to galleries and expose them to different styles and mediums, the more open and receptive they will be to things that are experimental, unusual or transgressive.
Or maybe children are just unsocialised little animals that shouldn’t be allowed free rein in society?
Children explore the world through touch. My boy loves to scratch his fingers against woodchip wallpaper, to stand with his palms flat against the rough bark of a tree. Anyone familiar with kids will be able to imagine what went through that child’s mind as they stood in front of Grey, Orange on Maroon, No 8. Something about the unvarnished, slightly chalky surface of the paint made them want to feel it. And so they did. Arguably, in doing so, they connected with the work of Rothko on a deeper level than many adults.
🙄
Either way, I hope that the child wasn’t made to feel too bad. Perhaps it’ll be a funny story that the parents tell someday, and I bet they watch their child a bit more closely in future. I don’t want to add to the shame they are probably already feeling, but I do wonder if it’s time modern parents had a think about rehabilitating the much-maligned toddler reins of the 1980s and 90s, even if just for occasional use.
But wasn’t it your type of progressive mummies who demanded their use be curtailed as they stifled ‘free expression’ in the first place?
Well I never; the Grauniad promoting Frankfurt marxism: who'dathunkit?
ReplyDeleteThat wheel rolls round again, ever slower than last time...
DeleteDoes the emoji mean that, possibly for the first time in the history of this blog, you are at a loss for words?
ReplyDeleteIf so, I’m with you there! Or at least I can think of a few ways to refer such pretentious, indulgent, sentimental drivel but they aren’t good for my blood pressure - and the emoji says it all anyway.
I grew up surrounded by paintings at home and was frequently taken to other studios and to museums and galleries. As soon as I learned to walk, the instruction ‘hands behind your back!’ accompanied every close encounter with a piece of art or anything breakable.
It’s one of the most useful things to teach a child - a way not only to safeguard precious or easily damaged items but also to avoid potential hazards - but presumably it doesn’t play well these days with a certain type of parent, of which the author is apparently one; while it is reasonable to hope that the child responsible is not made to feel guilty, the suggestion that the parents could make ‘a funny story’ out of their astounding and abject failure suggests a viewpoint so skewed it defies the laws of nature.
I think it's an emoji I'll be using more and more often!
DeleteTo be honest, the writer sounds so infantile that it wouldn't surprise me to know they still dip fingers in their own poop and paint the walls with it.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably how she creates her columns - Tim Worstall's readers had her pegged years ago.
DeleteThere is definitely an air of Emporer's New Clothes about art isn't there? How else could that grotty piece of worthless tat be considered a valuable masterpiece? If you set a whole bunch of kids onto it with a big box of crayons it could only be an improvement.
ReplyDeleteStonyground.
😅
DeleteI'm surprised that the object is described as art, ad was valued at more than 42p. Emperor's New Clothes.
ReplyDeleteAs much as that?
DeleteI know who it is writing without clicking on the link...
ReplyDeleteThe best type of 'Guardian' brand recognition!
Delete