VIEWER OR VOYEUR?

    Is Miley Cyrus selling so much music because of her songs or because so many people like watching her new outrageousness? I'm guessing it is the latter, but actually that's ok. If that's what the people want, and she's giving it to them and making tons of money in the meantime, then both sides are happy.

    Unfortunately it is the same in the fine arts. I first was irritated by this side-showing of artists' lives back when I was an art student. Sitting in lecture halls, I wanted to learn all about the world's great artworks. The more art history courses I took, the more I found professors going on and on about the artists' personal lives, all the gaudy details as if it were a painter's Entertainment Tonight.

    Of course one cannot fully separate the artist from the artwork, but I believe that artworks should speak for themselves. This is an artistic concept that I am unable to let go of. If the artist is the star, and not the artwork, then the exhibition becomes like a circus; hype and flash just to get the viewers in. To my mind the artwork is everything.

    Be honest. Would you care at all about this work by Pablo Picasso if you weren't told all your life what an important artist he was, and about his turbulent personal life? It looks like Warner Bros. on LSD.  How about this Jackson Pollock? Would you care at all about this piece if there was no movie made about his life, and you didn't know that his works are selling for stupendous prices?

    Here's one by Andy Warhol that speaks for its time and for American pop culture. Andy is/was as hyped a personality in the art world as any can be, but the work stands up to it.

And Monet: everyone knows this artist's name and that he was a leading French impressionist, but damn it, this piece is so beautiful. Again, its quality stands by itself, which is absolutely as it should be.