The line between art and non-art may seem blurry, and the perceived and the real value of a painting can be widely different

In May 2016, two youngsters left a pair of spectacles on the floor of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to play a prank on visitors. A large audience gathered around, impressed by the “work of art”, and many clicked photographs of the spectacles.

On the surface, it might seem a practical joke on contemporary art. Many believe, however, that the “performance” of placing the glasses on the floor, getting an audience for it, and then picking them up has a streak of art in it — in the way that it is a comment on the public perception of art.

The line between art and non-art may seem blurry and even invisible, but many believe that the main purpose of art is holding a mirror to society. The point of contention then is the ways and means employed to do so.

Picasso’s Guernica shows the ugliness and atrocities of war and violence, in the same way that the glasses experiment shows the gap between the perceived and the real value of art. The only difference here is that you can hang Guernica on a wall.

Anti-establishment art

The glasses experiment is not the only one that has challenged people’s perception of art. Take the case of the anonymous England-based graffiti artist Banksy, who is popular for his anti-establishment art that grew out of the Bristol underground scene and soon became immensely popular across the world. Ironically enough, his works that heavily critique the class-based, pretentious world of the wealthy have found a place in prominent art galleries of the U.K. and the U.S., and are auctioned for millions. Moments after his graffiti titled Girl with balloon was sold for £1 million in Sotheby’s, London, the work went through a shredder that the artist had secretly installed in its frame.

Shallow lines

In recent times, many people on social media have been calling out the supposed shallowness of modern art. When a work with just some rectangles and squares painted in different colours sells for millions or billions, they ask whether or not it is worth the huge money.

Raising questions that ask what the difference is between a Ravi Varma and a Banksy leads the discussion towards more fundamental questions such as what is the purpose of art in present society.

It varies from person to person, which, in turn, helps determine the worth of a work of art. If you believe that all art should be beautiful and have a certain degree of aesthetic appeal, then Ravi Varma’s Shakuntala may be worth more to you than the Banksy installation Vandalised phone box.

But for some, the installation talks about the artist’s disillusionment with British society, as the red phone box is a common London fixture.

The intention of the artist and the story behind the art sometimes seem to have an effect on how we see it, especially if it is not too commercial.

Frida Kahlo, after surviving a car accident at the age of 18, was bedridden with multiple injuries and ailments which never left her for the rest of her life.

Many of her works beautifully describe the physical and psychological pain she endured. Apart from the art, the story of Frida overcoming her disabilities to create something beautiful affects the context in which we view her works.

On the other hand, the glasses experiment or Banksy shredding his work becomes more than just a practical joke or publicity stunt in that they shed some light on the various aspects of public perception, which is the reason few are willing to dismiss these events as non-art or insignificant. Many may also call it a form of democratisation of art itself, when people can freely tell their side of the story and be assured that they will not go unheard.

But what is, or should be, the outcome of art? Many cynics would say that apart from grabbing our attention, the glasses experiment and the Banksy stunt failed to achieve anything substantial. Did Banksy really change rich people’s perception of art? Did he break the system, or simply became a part of it?

Out of the cartel

There can be many ways to approach this question, a pointer to the very strength of art, especially in the 21st century. For a long time, art was always under the iron fist of a select few who dominated society by the power of the divine or wealth (or both). If there is anything that modern democracy has soundly impacted, it is the general art and culture that we as a society consume.

This includes not only creating new art but also viewing and revisiting old art with hindsight and a fresh perspective. So the fact that we are able to point towards the futility of Banksy’s stunt itself is a sign that we are in the process of constantly developing the means which we as a society use to communicate our scepticisms and anxieties.

Banksy’s partially shredded work will probably be housed in the dining hall of a rich person. But the possibility that it could even be hanging next to Shakuntala tells us more about the journey of art itself, and what it can potentially achieve once we give the voiceless a voice.

tulikashr@gmail.com