A toddler probably could've written this

Where the hell have you been, i hear you cry! well, I have been sitting on my bed with my laptop perched on my knees, drafting and deleting, thinking and rethinking, crying and screaming with frustration. As my feminism has become more profound and developed, i have been focussing my attention on exploring those ideas more than digging my teeth into current affairs. But I'd forgotten that the point of this blog is that it is not limited to just exploring politics or current affairs or anything in that field... And that is why I am back.

Today's topic: Art (which is arguably more charged with actual politics than most of the beige blue-sky drivel than we are submitted to every week in westminster... so i suppose everything on this blog is political to some extent... because everything in life is political to some extent... but that is a post for another time.)

Art is a complex, subjective thing that is, frustratingly, tricky to define but instead of all of the bodged definitions we so often get from dusty classical art historians, I offer one that I hope will be satisfactory:

Art is whatever is made as Art.

Let me explain. 

Art is not really that difficult to define. If someone says they have made a piece of art, it is art. It might not be 'good' art but it is still art. And yes, that does extend to signing urinals, letting cows heads decay in glass boxes and splattering paint seemingly randomly on canvases. Yes, an elephant can make art. Yes, a 7 year old can make art. Yes, even- god forbid- a normal human being, without a gimmick, without going viral, can make art. They might not win the turner prize... in fact, they almost certainly won't, but it is. still. art. 

And, with that in mind, are you sitting comfortably? then I'll begin.

The White Cube, 15th November 2014. 

It is the last day of Tracey Emin's "the last great adventure is you" show and the gallery is full of earnest creative types comparing the work to something from the Parthenon and feeling thoroughly liberated. The fourth wave is moving through the space. I am standing in front of the one big painting in the exhibition. It is huge and wild and hard to follow. It looks like mountains and people and both together. It is not my favourite piece in the show (that award goes to the huge embroideries, which quite literally took my breath away... as in, i was coughing hopelessly) but it is, undeniably, art and, i think, good art, at that. I have certainly been looking at it too long- it has started to shift and move in my mind's eye and I take a step back. As I move away, two young women- probably a bit older than me- step into my place. I am a little annoyed that they have completely obstructed my view but dismiss it- the place is, after all, heaving and i did, after all, move away. I take a step to the right so that i can see the painting again, heave a little internal sigh and am about to forgive them when one of them turns to her friend, raises an eyebrow and says... 

"I'm sorry but a toddler could've have done that."

"A toddler could've done it" is the most pathetic bit of art criticism ever. It hardly constitutes criticism to be honest. I know plenty of toddlers who make fantastic art so there. humph. 

But honestly, that is one of the fatal flaws of this phrase. Comparing an artist's masterpiece to a toddler's is not really an insult. It's just a poor comparison. Toddler art is surprisingly good sometimes but it rarely bares much resemblance to the abstract pieces that is so often compared to. Some toddlers work in a series of tornado like scribbles in crayon, some in strange potato figures, some in glitter glue and stamps. They are sometimes more figurative than some of the artist's work that they are compared to. Not always, of course, but sometimes. 

And that brings me to my next qualm (it's quite a long list by the way- just a heads up): not all toddler art is the same. How dare you suggest that all toddlers paint in the same way! If people started saying "This piece looks a bit like that painting of a fairy that 3 year old Jane Brown from down the road did last week" i would have less of a problem because at least an actual comparison would be being drawn rather than just some loose, patronising insult. 

AND it is patronising. Not just to the artist, either, but also to the general, unspecified toddler in question. The fact that "a toddler could've done it" is considered to be insulting annoys me. It is as if because a toddler could have done it, it renders the art less valuable, less 'good', less arty. But some toddler art is really rather good, in my humble opinion. And it is just that- toddler art. It is still art. I refer to my earlier definition of art- if the toddler was making art, then the product is art. In defence of toddlers, can you stop using their art to degrade other artists' work? It's just not cool. 

Now for the artist who is being criticised. I understand that not everyone likes abstract art. I understand that not everyone considers it to be quite as aesthetically pleasing as figurative landscapes, still life or portraits. I understand and I recognise that some people just don't care about concept. I understand, I recognise and I disagree. To me, all i look for in art is that it invokes a response from me- that I feel something, think something, see something a little differently. 

And let's cut to the chase:

"A toddler could've done that."

Thing is, they didn't.