Art Column

By Richard O. Jones
Reprinted with permission of the Journal-News

Anyone who has been following the controversy regarding “The Hamilton Gateway” should be particularly interested in “Art,” a play now running at the Human Race Theatre in Dayton.

The play is about three friends, middle-age adult males, and how their relationship is thrown into a frenzy when one of them buys a painting that, by all appearances, is white diagonal lines on a white background. In other words, “modern art.”

As I watched the play last weekend and how one of the collector’s friends got so upset, I couldn’t help but think about the letters to the editor and some of the entries we received in the essay contest regarding “The Hamilton Gateway.”

Had the public arts committee selected something more representational, say a fountain in the classical style or a larger than life statue of Alexander Hamilton (as if anyone would recognize him), it seems unlikely that there would have been such an out-cry, such absolutely caustic and nasty letters and essay entries.

Not everyone would fall immediately in love with a 20-foot Alexander Hamilton, but I don’t think such a work would have inspired the same kind of venom. There’s something about modern art, art that expresses ideas rather than objects, that gets to people in a way nothing else can.

Modern art is meant to be challenging, to knock the lid off convention and pour some pepper in the pot. When the Impressionists held their first exhibition in 1874, they were scorned and ridiculed by the public and by many critics. Yet Renoir, Monet, Cezanne and others are now among the most famous names in art. Their admirer and follower Vincent Van Gogh sold only two paintings in his lifetime, and now his work is worth millions.

Furthermore, if you go to any community arts show, like the one now hanging at the Middletown fine arts center or the Greater Hamilton Art Show held at the Fitton Center every spring, you’ll find that Impressionism is the preferred genre of amateur artists. Second, perhaps, only to floral still lifes in watercolor.

I didn’t take a survey, but I’d be willing to bet that those who got so very angry about “The Hamilton Gateway” would be the same people who would say that art is inessential, something extra in life, something that should be “nice,” not engaging or challenging.

There’s a paradox there. If art is unnecessary, then why get worked up about it? If art isn’t worth time and money, how can it be worth the energy it takes to be so angry?

Deep inside, I believe, such people harbor secret feelings. They wouldn’t admit it, but they do understand the power of art. Art has the power to disgust and anger just as it has the power to soothe and entertain.

Without giving away the ending to “Art,” which won the 1998 Tony for Best Play for playwright Yasmina Reza, I will tell you that the friends come to an understanding about the painting and about their friendship.

I like to think the same thing will happen in regard to “The Hamilton Gateway.”

There’s a movement afoot to make Hamilton “The City of Sculpture,” and I’d like to challenge anyone, especially those who are so critical of “The Hamilton Gateway,” to get involved in this movement, to help select the next sculptures that will be put in Hamilton’s parks and public places. Call me and I’ll get you in touch with the right people.

And to those who believe that they can create monumental art better than “that piece of rusted junk” in front of the Government Services Center, I say, “Go for it!” Maybe yours will be the next contribution to “The City of Sculpture.”