An Article by J. J. (831 words, 4 min. read)
It has been a common practice lately that one would attend an art exhibition and see that what is being placed on display is the exact same artwork(s) that have been exhibited previously and not after a decent span of time.
Excuses …. Excuses ….
While some might argue that there is nothing wrong with that, we beg to differ. Déjà vu art, and recently exposed art, should not be exhibited over and over with the one exception of master pieces worthy of museum exhibitions or displays. As such, unless the budding artist (and most artists are budding in the grand scheme of artistic accomplishments) thinks that their art is Picassoesque or Rembrandtish, such a practice should not be permitted if not flat out banned.
What does repetitive exposure show?
For one, it shows the lack of creativity of the artist. It may also show laziness or a lack of a discipline to create to put on a show that might in the least bit be intriguing to the viewer.
Also, and more importantly, it shows lack of respect to our intelligence as observers who many times aim to quench our thirst for art by drinking a more flavorful dose of art, a more refined, or better modified, or elevated art, only to come to the realization that we are just seeing the exact same piece that was displayed before.
And that brings us to point number three. Doesn’t this show that the artwork is not being liked or appreciated by anyone to be acquired and placed in their homes or at their immediate vicinity? It is quite shocking that this does not occur to the artist. We all know how artists are very protective of their works and especially of their reputations. How come then that when it comes to “exhibiting”, this concern goes out the window? Perhaps the answer is psychological and feeds into the ego of the artist who more than often wants to be seen, and at any cost, so that the flagrant errors are ignored, especially the repetitive error of displaying already seen works. While bricks on a wall are beautiful, there is so much one can appreciated by observing each and every one of them.
Other platforms are guilty as well.
This phenomenon is not only related to exhibitions, be it at galleries or at exhibition spaces.
We also see this in unprofessional auction houses!
Here is a little word about auctions. Isn’t it the responsibility, moral and ethical, of the auction house to guide the artists or the collectors about what can or cannot be auctioned on their platforms? In one instance, there has been a particular painting that was placed in auction platforms in a particular middle eastern country more than four times, and within the span of a year! Isn’t that an insult to the observer’s intelligence? And is this practice not undermining the value of this work or it’s acquirable potential? Most recently, a painting by a master painter was auctioned on one platform (in that same country by the way) and did not sell, and it immediately found its way to another platform and within a couple of weeks. How is that beneficial, for anyone, and how is that not insulting at all levels?
A word about the infamous comfort zone.
Human nature is funny. One is always comfortable in a certain comfort zone that one, many times, resists change or adventure or even creativity. Comfort zones while helpful in many situations are detrimental in others. In many instances it is the insecurities that one possesses that allows one to make major mistakes of running to their so called “comfort zones”. Many times, comfort zones are fake and almost play on the “Stockholm Syndrome” principle in that those who are being abused by their mates end up defending their abusers, because all they know is life of abuse. How good is the comfort zone then? It is fake and it is detrimental.
And the human mind plays tricks faking disasters should one leave their comfort zone. They make it sound like if a fish leaves the fishbowl it may die. They fail to think that the fish may be leaving it to go to the ocean.
Giving an “ex” a second chance.
It is said that going back to an “ex” or at least giving them a fake chance of rekindling is similar to reheating McDonald fries. Bland and tasteless.
In fact, there is a better and more accurate description of that situation which is equivalent to “returning shit back into the asshole”. And while that act of precious return is always possible, the consequences are detrimental to the gastrointestinal system of the person, and medically speaking to his entire being. It may end up with the end of life as they know it!
We would hope that such practices stop, out of respect for the observer, and primarily, out of self-respect.
