Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Jenny A]

I'll go back and look at all the posts in a few minutes. But, as someone who makes my living through painting, I have a few initial reactions:

Yes, academically critically acclaimed "high" art has to jumped the shark. A medicine cabinet with all of the artist's hygiene detritus mounted on a gallery wall is not art. Much of this crap is no more than a snigger at those defining art as whatever an artist says art is----so, how about this? I say it's art!

This is related to what I think of as the cult of originality. That is that whatever is most original is good. You can tell this kind of art simply by asking, "could anyone expand upon this?," "could it be improved, or is once enough?" If the answers are no and yes, then it's not art it's just different. Would the next artist's trash can full of whatever be better?

This is related to shock art. The idea being that if it offends enough people, it must be good. Poop paintings and "Piss Christ" featuring a crucifix in the artist's urine typify this form of "art."

And then there's art that requires an essay from the artist in order for the audience to understand it. Why not just submit the essay and have done with?

What I think in all of these cases the artist and the academics have lost sight of is that art is supposed to be communication to people, or the very least a substantial number of people. If you don't have a general audience, what you have is a failure to communicate. If you have to explain what it means, you failed. With visual art, what the artist means may be no more than LOOK, and you will see it the way I see it.