wheat? chaff? eva hesse.

there's a weird thing going on when someone is said to have "the best taste in (x)." most people can tell that its a statement loaded with ramifications. but it's something that is said with enough frequency that it certainly is an attitude that is shared by a lot of people. so many that the statement can be seen as culturally mainstream. established and whatnot.

the statement says a few things:

1. there is an ideal taste, taste can be ranked. taste is no longer subjective. there are some standards that apply to taste.
2. somehow taste is not completely self-determined - if not, we would all assume the taste we deem 'best.' forces outside of simple preference are at work, things beyond control, on a scale too large to dissect. taste seems to choose you. and you know the ideal taste has not chosen you.
3. as (x), be it music/art/books, is not a static body of work but instead is consistently augmented, taste must be adaptive. taste must deal with change. people's tastes change with everything they encounter. this ideal taste, too, must change.

a hierarchy of taste reigns. what we read and see is dictated by necessity. we can't read or here everything. and yes, this has positives. you can imagine how anxious we would all be if we really thought that the best books written were not being read, and the best films of our time were not being made at all. but we are reassured - people with 'taste' advocate for us all along the chain. we need not grind our teeth over what we may be missing. in fact, when people gripe about money ruling hollywood, they are really griping over taste's relegation to second place.

but what happens when the dictates of this hierarchy of 'taste' aren't obvious, where taste perhaps has no foundation on which to build? where the objective goodness we are convinced exists is nowhere to be seen? where you couldn't even tell if someone has the best taste or average taste or bad taste? where am i?

that's why, i think, contemporary art confuses people and angers people, and maybe deservedly. there are no clear parameters, and a small group of largely arbitrary people are busy making arbitrary decisions about what has substance and what doesn't. as someone who knows very little about it, this is exactly how i feel about 50% of the time: dear lord, who is in charge here?

however, in the remainder there are things i look at and say "something, somewhere in there, is functioning as it should be." the hierarchy i recognize as 'proper' is embedded in there.

it took that long semantic exercise to justify this post on eva hesse.

it took that to preface why i think of her as a sculptor - a very very very good one. her work is what could be called "untraditional." i can barely describe what i like about it.

i think form is so powerful because it communicates feeling completely outside of language. it finds a route into our brain outside words. so there is really no way to use words to describe how i connect with it, but i can look at even a picture and say hey i like that. here are some more.

ingeminate, 1965.

hang up, 1966

right after, 1969