April 16, 2014

"I was always told that art was good for me, but until recently I didn’t know what it was good for. What is good?"

"What is good in the U.S.A. is health and health products," wrote Alexander Melamid, who opened art-health storefront clinic back in 2011. You need to think about whether you are getting the right dosage of art and the right art for your particular ailment:
“[W]hen you go to a museum.... you have to be very discreet. You don’t want overexposure — that’s as dangerous as to take too many medicines. Art needs to be taken in moderation and according to a specialist who can prescribe the right dosage.”...
“If you have hay fever, you go to see Claude Monet, that’s for sure. For your problem I would recommend Paul Cézanne. When you go to the museum, don’t look around much. Go direct to Paul Cézanne. It’s very powerful painting, but in a way it’s also pacifying.”

For some additional, on-the-spot relief, Mr. Melamid zapped the patient right on the forehead with a projection of one of Modigliani’s reclining nudes. “Close your eyes,” he instructed. “Naked girl, beautiful girl. But will not arouse your emotions, because it’s elongated.”


madAsHell said...

What is good in the U.S.A. is health and health products

Snake oil!!

sojerofgod said...

Oh, for pity's sake.
Does ANYONE really believe this?
I am impressed by some art, by the obvious skill and talent displayed. Been to the British Museum in fact, though after about 15 galleries of what could be charitably called 17th century porn, it got a bit cloying. The tag you have on this article for some reason reminded me of a song, from a musical in a long dead era, of which I include an excerpt of the lyric for your consideration:

Three rousing rahs and a few hussahs
And a hip-hip-hip hooray
What's good for General Bullmoose
Is good for the U.S.A.

Henry said...

Art use to be good for you because it was food.

Then it was vodka. (I saw this when it was exhibited in New York).

Now it's medicine. Thus the zeitgeist.

Peter said...

This seems a peculiarly Victorian view of of art, the reason why so many rich men endowed museums ("it's good for you.").

The contemporary view surely is that although the artists may be capable of anything but surely is responsible for nothing. And if the artist is responsible for nothing, than why would you expect that what the artist creates would be good for you?

David said...

I've had my dose of bullshit for today. It's great to get it over with early.

Bob Boyd said...

As a testimonial to this theory of art as a health product, I will tell you that I like to draw little figures on my crackers with the Cheese Whiz rather than just squirting out a blob like an imbecile or a trained monkey would do.
For years they laughed at me, my so-called friends, but I have outlived them all.

madAsHell said...

Been to the British Museum in fact, though after about 15 galleries of what could be charitably called 17th century porn

Paintings in the British Museum?? Really?
The Elgin Marbles, but I don't recall any paintings.

Howard said...

I believe it. So does the CIA. They prescribed art from the Red Hot Chili Peppers to heal their patients. The Catholic Church believe it, look at all of their commissioned artwork that cures their patients of reason to keep the faith.

BTW, Mr. Sojerofgod (Killer for Christ?) skill and talent is craft... art is transcendent.

I'm sure you prefer totalitarian realism. Notice the similarities:


Sigivald said...

There's a sucker born every minute.

lgv said...

I wonder if Steve Jobs would have or should have tried this.

sojerofgod said...

Wow. Such acidic tongues. SO, the "British Museum" I refer to technically was the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, London. So sue me for not looking it up exactly, don't really care. Museums aren't really my thing anyway, I prefer the living to the dead: museums are requiems.
Art is Transcendent? did you copyright that phrase? I does sound very catchy, I would recommend it. Do you really mean to say that creating Art takes no skill, no effort or talent? If you are honest about this look at the creations in the "Museum" I mention and compare to what passes for most "Art" (funded by the public purse no doubt) and I think you would have to admit the difference in craftsmanship is profound.

Howie: Sorry, didn't follow the links for the Soviet/Tea Realism thing. Waste of pixels.
As far as my handle is concerned, well, I could explain it but I don't think you would understand it.

mikee said...

I would be willing to view cubist portraits all day, heck, even a David Lynch film, if it made my allergies to Texas Cedar and Oak pollen go away.