When I worked as a paralegal/legal proofreader, walking the halls of big law firms in Manhattan, I wondered why they had non-objective art on the walls. Is it just social metaphysics, going along with the art establishment because that impresses people?
I’ve come to think that those law firms see a different value in non-objective art: interior decoration. A painting with colors, whether neat or sloppy, that do not represent something you would see in reality, is a high-priced patch of wallpaper. It’s pleasant and decorative, like the pattern in a bedspread.
Non-objective art can be ignored; it doesn’t demand the attention of a harried paralegal scrambling to get documents in order for a billion dollar merger. Real art would be distracting in a fast paced business environment.
Non-objective artists as interior decorators; it’s quite an insult, isn’t it? Let’s hope the con artists get plenty of dough from their Wall Street patrons. They need it to afford their psychotherapists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Non-objective art seems to be everywhere nowadays. My first thought when seeing these "things" is: "Someone actually spent money on this trash? What moronic executive approved that expenditure?".
Now that's an advertising slogan for you. Non-Objective art! It breaks up inconvenient white space!
Post a Comment