Response – Jeanette Winterson “Art Objects”

“Art Objects” by Jeanette Winterson is a powerful essay displaying the

author’s path from artistic ignorance, through gradual acceptance and

assimilation of the fine art of painting, to an attempt at defining the very nature

and purpose of art in general. Its nature subjective, the text raises many

interesting issues: some highly agreeable, others largely controversial.

The prime example of the latter category would be the author’s statement

that “[c]anonising pictures is a way of killing them.” What the phrase implies in

its given context is that the acknowledgment of a certain piece of art as a

milestone bears numerous undesirable consequences such as the “shroud of

distractions” that the piece is sure to get surrounded by, or the fact that

achieving an “unhindered viewing” on said work will surely be made more

difficult. Both of those statements seem to ring true, the culture of “Now” does,

after all, have a tendency to reduce everything to an easily digestible pulp (as

Winters points out herself). Does said reduction bring death to a painting

though? Promotion in form of canonization does bring a vast popularity to a

given piece, and that popularity brings visitors in return. It is true that most of

them will merely glance at the canvas and then look away in order to pursue

some bit of irrelevant trivia, but for every dozen, hundred or thousand of such

tourists there will be at least one individual who will study the piece thoroughly

in order to discover all of its many secrets. It is true, however, that such scholars

would never be able to “finalize their relationship” with given works of art – in

the words of Winterson’s metaphor of studying arts as loving – as their

acquisition is either impossible or highly improbable, but as long the canonized

work manages to spark one person’s passion and taste for fine arts we might

consider its role fulfilled, not diminished. After all – paraphrasing Winterson’s

own words – the art is as much about the present and the future, as much it is

about past, be it canonical or rejected.

Moving on from the topic of canonization, Winterson mentions that in the

world of “Now” people rarely pay attention to modern art; even more so:
according to “Art Objects” the everyman tends to dismiss it as irrelevant, while

at the same time elevating the art of old to new heights. What the author seems

to omit is that “the art of Now” is still an experimental cause. It is not a

homogenous mass, nor does it always stem from the trends of old –

experimental art is dangerous in that it is unpredictable in both: direction and

quality. Its chaotic properties are the ones who should take the blame for the

dismissal with which the people of Now treat the “arts of Now”, and though it is

true that not all of the good works have become canonical, the “arts of Then”

still radiate with certain order and stability, so alluring to those of us who have

already been devoured by the hectic tempo of present life. It seems that the

everymen will appreciate the “art of Now” only after its ascension to the “art of

Then”, when its now-chaotic trends will have become clear and all of the

dispensable fillers will have been lost to oblivion.

Works Cited:

Jeanette Winterson. Art Objects. 14 Apr. 2014. ‹

http://www.olinda.com/Art/artobjects.htm›.