The Synarts Gallery James Ford

James Ford
The Synarts Gallery
Trying to define art is difficult because art can mean many different things to many different people. It is defined in the dictionary as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as a painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” While this is a decent definition, I think it still does not suffice. Art is defined best for me in the cliché saying that, “art is to the eyes, what music is to the ears,” but once again I doubt that this definition would be considered agreeable to all others.
I traveled to Europe this summer, and while in Italy I viewed many pieces of art that are widely considered to be some of, if not the best works of art in the world. This art included the Sistine Chapel, St. Peters Basilica, the Statue of David, and the Uffizi Gallery. I am not trying to sound snobbish when I say this and I am not inferring that I am in any way an authority on art. I am saying this because when I viewed many of these pieces, I was absolutely blindsided and overwhelmed by the emotion that they were able to produce in me, and while you certainly cannot compare all other art to these works, it at least gives us a standard to which all art should strive to be. If this art is widely revered as good art, then the best definition I can give, is that art is simply a form of communication, and that it’s purpose is to bring about emotion that cannot fully be captured in a simpler, cruder form. If the criteria for judging artwork is it’s power to communicate, then I have to say I had very mixed feelings about the Synarts display at a campus gallery we viewed last week.
Upon entering the gallery the first piece of “art” that strikes your eye is a large cylindrical bundle of shredded paper that I at first thought was an oddly shaped couch. This was a very intriguing piece that left many of us asking questions about how it was composed, and what it was trying to communicate. A class discussion led to quite a few far fetched, forced theories about what this piece meant, but it was difficult to come to a consensual decision. I do not find any fault in the fact that this piece could have been interpreted in many ways, but rather in the fact that it made absolutely no striking impression on me, or anyone else as far as I could tell. The artist came to talk to our class and indeed put to rest all of theories about what this art meant. He might have said this simply because art is supposed to mean different things to different people, but I honestly felt like this piece was both lazy and unthought-out. I have to say there were a few more pieces in the gallery I felt the same way about, but there were also those that did make an impression on me.
One of these pieces was Brandon McCullar’s Rope-a-Dope, a black and white drawing of a boxer standing over his beaten opponent. The standing boxer closely resembles Muhammad Ali, and while the name Rope-a-Dope references Ali, it is impossible to be certain, but you can clearly tell that this man is a champion of sorts. But the truly interesting thing about this picture is the opponent lying beaten and literally broken on the ground. The beaten opponent is not a man, but instead a machine that looks clearly larger and superior to the boxer who has just beaten him. His head has been knocked off and his mechanical components lay strewn around the ring. This picture filled me with encouragement and pride. It stands as a testament to the human spirit, which should never be underestimated. The great theme of this picture is complimented further by the detail with which it has been drawn. The artist has individually drawn all of the cheering spectators in the background, and has contrasted the two opponents even further in the way he has drawn them. The features of the machine have been exaggerated and are drawn clearly, highlighting the machines concrete, tangible, but stagnant power, while the human boxer is somewhat blurred and undefined, conveying that there is more to him than can simply be seen by the naked eye.
It is pretty easy to find the contrast between these two pieces of art. Besides the obvious differences that ones a sculpture and ones a drawing, and the fact that I really like one and dislike the other, much more can be read into these pieces. While Scotts paper bundle has no clear message that he is trying to convey, Rope-a-Dope is making a point, exactly what that point is, depends on who is viewing the picture. Both of these works though are considered art, and this diversity is exactly what makes the Synarts gallery what it is. I walked out of the Synarts gallery questioning what I had originally thought was a good definition of art. Every piece intrigued me, and noticing that some of my classmates deeply appreciated pieces that I did not think much of sent me the message that it is close-minded to try and put any concrete definition on art. I guess its kind of like the saying that one mans trash is another mans treasure; one mans bundle of paper is another mans artwork, and I believe it would be wrong for me to say otherwise. For this reason I would say that you need to go and see the Synarts gallery if you get a chance, because while you might find some pieces you don’t like you are definitely going to find some pieces you do like, and more importantly you are going to come out of the gallery questioning your definition of “art.”