I was thinking that this guy's work reminds me a bit of Duchamp and his "readymades"--perhaps Crowther is part of a nouveau-dada movement and I should be more appreciative. Better yet, I should jump on board…I'm looking around at random things I could snap shots of with my iPhone (NOT as hipster as a Polaroid, but I can always add filters in phone to make it look Polaroidish).
Watch this space…there are electric cords, cat food, and half-dead balloons that I don't even have to get out of my chair to take pictures of. I may be foisting them upon you all. In the name of art, of course.
So here's the deal…I know much art is subjective, and how dare I declare that his work is not art! But I think Cindy said something quite profound above when she said the artsy folks are not interested in pretty anymore. It seems that academic elitism has reared its head here. An image is not interesting or sophisticated unless it's ugly or weird--it's certainly not worthy of the title "art" if the average viewer, the common man, likes it.
I find this phenomenon in the music world as well. I attend the symphony regularly, and rather often our music director likes to throw in something new and modern. Inevitably these pieces are atonal and weird, without much "conventional" beauty and with every attempt to get the instruments to make every squawk and screech they can. I guess I'm labeling myself as lowbrow by admitting that I usually don't like them. My friend and I often joke that it's like the fable of the emperor's new clothes--everyone wants to be seen as sophisticated and intellectual so they pretend to see or like what's not really there. I often feel like these pieces are written by academics for other academics--certainly not to please the audience. (I have a master's degree in English, so I've actually participated in this silly practice of being an academic writing for other academics, and the more unintelligible and jargon-filled your paper, the more intellectual you're given credit for being.)
I feel like Crowther's work is just as pretentious and "atonal" as some of that noise masquerading as music.
So he has someone who finds value in it. Good for him.
I understand the thought behind Duchamp's urinal, but I'm certainly not going to buy it and display it in my home. Same with Crowther's work. Guess I'm too old-fashioned.