More is not better

ONE of your articles winds up talking in terms of money being the ironic test of art’s viability and coherence, while the other piece simply repeats the same refrain about our “bounty” of artistic visions [“The Art Explosion” and “Forget ‘Isms’ -- Except Eclecticism,” respectively, Oct. 1].

Neither makes any attempt to argue that great art is being produced, only that a ton of artists are finding some success in the marketplace by milking some little variation, now that originality has been declared impossible. Of course, they can’t separate the good from the bad here, because there isn’t much difference these days. And that kind of multiplicity just leaves us overfed with junk art and, finally, undernourished.

It’s no revelation to hear that the contemporary art world is awash in diversity or eclecticism. Anyone picking up two or three art magazines at the local book shop could tell you that, and this has been the case for many years.

But in the midst of all this multiplicity of artists and formal approaches, do we find any worthy standouts who present a compelling vision that rivals the major figures of those previous, more stylistically narrow times?

Unfortunately, very few. Desperate for something to write about or sell as if it really matters, your art writers join the legion of curators, gallery directors and assorted apologists for mediocrity by championing one or more slack talents of our time. It’s been a fallow period in art history for many years, and the proliferation of artists and visual tactics has seemed to result in dilution rather than concentration of artistic vision.

TIM JAHNS

Upland