It's all crap, unless it's clearly not.

That is my new theory of art in a nutshell.

I was looking at a page on David Byrne's website, http://www.davidbyrne.com/art/index.php
and I noticed that some of what I was looking at was interesting, but on average it just looked like a bunch of stuff that he made. Not exactly what I expected from a resepected and successful artist like Mr. Byrne.

It may seem like I'm talkin' shit.

I'm not. I'm trying to make a point.

When I See or Hear or otherwise Experience some Art, my reaction is usually: "Hmm. That is some art. Yep. There it is."

Until now I thought that this was because I had no sense as far as aesthetics go. Occasionally, a piece of work would stand out dramatically in a positive or negative light, but I have never had a very good understanding of what exactly this positive or negative light was or where it came from. What David Byrne accidently helped me see was that my blah-zey reactions have most likely been justified, because the vast majority of created art is necessarily mediocre. When a strong reaction is elicited, that's just good (or bad) art doing its thing. If a unit of art completely fails to ellicit some kind of positive reaction, it may as well not exist at all. It is no more than a symbol of wasted time, space, and energy. Therefore it is Crap.

And now a logical question:

If most art is mediocre crap, then what possible justification could there be for the constantly growing stinkpile? Why should anyone invest themselves into making all of this garbage?

Because every once in a while, they hit the truth dead in the eye and make a whole damned life worth living. The stinkpile turns to roses. The world is new.

So go on home now. Nothing more to see here. I wrote this column in order to articulate my own little thought. It's clever and informative at best. At worst it's boring and self-indulgent.

Almost certainly it's mediocre.