Art and I are as apart from each other as the Everest's summit is from its base. But, as long as we are on the same mountain, there is the hope that I can climb to the top of it at some point, or at least look up and appreciate the daunting wonder that is the Everest (art)! :) But, lately I have been looking up and seeing a summit polluted with cruddy, mannerless men. It is upsetting beyond the boundaries of what is reasonable!

Let me share some perplexing news stories that I came across over the last few days.

In Maria Abramovic's "otherwise" celebrated exhibition in MoMA, her eight new performers who were standing on display were poked, prodded and groped by visitors until they had to be thrown out of the museum. What is such a disreputable lot (and I speak of the visitors, not the art-people) doing in an art museum anyway? I wonder if this is all we have to write about the "21st century art-loving neanderthals" in our history textbooks of the future: Will this be described as the era where the art-viewing experience of adults involved "touch-and-feel", as did their book-reading experience as kids? (On a slightly-unrelated side note: I love the children's touch-and-feel books. I find them fascinating even now. My first one as a kid was a book called the "Egg in a Hole". In it, Henny runs around the farm looking for her lost egg and meets lots of farm animals on the way. It was the book I read almost everyday for a whole year. Back then, I used to think of it as a work of art, although today there are tons of other sophisticated touch-and-feel books that are far more engaging and innovative. Which brings me to my point: Is there an expiry date on art? Do some kinds of art cease to be considered art once they have been improved on?)

In another news, The Bloomberg administration wants to shrink the art space in New York, because there are way too many art vendors crowding parks and streets, and making it difficult for pedestrians to walk, especially on the sidewalks! I can see why this poses problems from a pure logistics point of view. But, shouldn't we be looking for alternative avenues for these artists to express themselves and sell their works? There is no talk of requital... only wreck-quital! What does it say about us that we are struggling to find space for artists to make a living in the open? It raises a lot of existential questions that I don't even know how to begin to ask!

There is also news that NYPD is peeved with the complaints it is receiving from people about statues on top of buildings that look like real people who are about to jump down! This, I think is a valid concern! As it is, tall buildings apart from mountain cliffs and monuments attract a lot of self-destructive people. (Disclaimer: I am only being sarcastic... don't mean to me insensitive) But, in anycase, I also have to wonder what the public can do if a person is about to jump down from a building. The thought alone scares the living daylights out of me. Should these First Aid manuals also teach us how to respond to suicidal situations? What I am really surprised about is that the police haven't received any calls from people worried that the statues (easily weighing more than 100 humans) might fall on their heads! To me, that seems more probable. What is even more interesting is that London had a similar statue-project going on all over their city three years ago and it didn't attract the paranoia that threatens to overwhelm the NYPD now.

Then there was Robert Ebert's declaration that video games can never be art. Even though I disagree with him, I am not eager to defend video games either. I think the discussion itself is rather silly... and like someone else said, the counter argument is turning out to be like a 26-year-old trying to convince his parents that he's a grown-up. But, I am disappointed that someone the likes of Ebert would get into petty two-dimensional (no pun intended) arguments about art! As much as I enjoy his film reviews and think highly of his style of critiquing, he isn't really an authority on art!

Ok. This next piece of news is not entirely bad. In fact, it may be good in some ways. Museums around the world are raiding their own closets to find artwork to display, so that they can cut down on their costly "art exhibition" budgets during this challenging economic time! The Metropolitan Museum of Art pulled out some rare Picassos from their vault. The fact that museums display less than 10% of the artwork in their collection at any given time is alone something to think about.... then the fact that they are hoarding art by artists the likes of Picasso for a rare "economic apocalypse" is beyond anything I had imagined.

There is another intriguing article about street photography becoming "a contested sphere in which all our collective anxieties converge: terrorism , paedophilia, intrusion, surveillance". I remember a discussion I had very recently with someone about the "right to privacy" on the streets. People-watching is for the most part an accepted hobby. We like haunting places where there are lots of people; we enjoy concertedly observing everyone as they go about their lives, while at the same time being aware that we too are being observed just as much. I won't say we are all entirely oblivious to our roles in this experience as "watchers and watchees". We dress well and present ourselves as befits the place and the occasion and we conduct ourselves with some consideration for where we are. Point is, we all know that "observing" and "being observed" are part of the deal (even if openly gawking at people is considered disrespectful... Indians notwithstanding)... but there is still the illusion of placidly going about our lives as if the world around us exists only superficially, as "ambience" and the only thing we care about is that thing we came to that place for (shopping at the mall, enjoying a concert, eating at a restaurant etc). But, the minute you pull out your camera and take a picture of this very same person you have been gawking at, you are invading their privacy! It is to say, you can take pleasure in their presence all you want (even clandestinely), but can't capture a fraction of a second of their lives even if it is only the slightest of everything you have entertained yourself with in them! The ethics of people-watching are grey while pretending to be black and white! I find that objectionable! I also find it thought-provoking how this is the rare case where sly covert operations are considered more respectable than direct, honest-to-goodness appreciation.

Although this post is about bad or borderline-questionable news regarding art, I can't help but share some good news. The New South Wales Government announced recently that people charged with child pornography offenses will no longer be able to claim the "artistic merit defense". Previously, this was a grey area, and criminal law had to consult art experts to clarify if some artwork portraying children should be considered art or child abuse (that it should be either-or is debatable, but I am happy this issue is being addressed). Having said that, I think about old mythological paintings and sculptures of nude children and wonder if they will be held to the same standard and be banned as well! (Fair to ask?)

Have you ever wondered why only a few art collectors in the world end up with lots of really good artwork? Of course, the obvious reason is they have the means to pay for it, but beyond that, how do they get to those pieces before someone else does? In the art market, oftentimes art gets sold to a select group of buyers even though there might be people willing to pay more for it! This exclusivity of the art world, the unspoken rules of trade, the competitive nature of bidding, even in these hard economic times is intriguing. Art world can be so murky sometimes. But, which world that sells products worth millions of dollars is not?