At least it wasn't a baseless decision

Britain’s Royal Academy, one of the hoity-toitiest hang-outs for the hoity-toity crowd of one of the hoity-toitier countries, made an interesting judgment recently on what constitutes art – at least art worthy to be displayed in such a prestigious setting as Britain’s Royal Academy.

The academy states that “it is accepted that works may not be displayed in the way that the artist might have intended,” but perhaps this time stretched its artistic license. Keep in mind that the modern art scene has its wealthy and elitist patrons, which means its experts can not only mingle in many of the right (well, left) social circles but also pocket some serious coin while they’re at it. One would assume that those responsible for determining what pieces get displayed (not to mention how and where) in a gallery such as the Royal Academy boast substantial credentials and support (perhaps even envy) of their peers. One would also suspect the compensation for those few deemed duly qualified to serve in such a capacity would be commensurate with said qualifications.

I, for one, grant little credence to those credentials. Modern art is a sham, as evidenced here by the Royal Academy and elsewhere through countless actions by the cultural elite. I am reminded of the gallery that lost an entire exhibit because their janitor mistook a pile of garbage for a pile of garbage and threw it away. Just because it’s eccentric doesn’t mean it’s art.

David Hensel submitted to the academy for consideration a sculpture of a head. He also sent a stone plinth upon which the sculpture should be displayed and a bone-shaped piece of wood that would hold the head in place.

During the process in which submissions are judged, the sculpture of the head – the actual piece of artwork and the product of his creative efforts – was rejected. It is currently “safely stored ready to be collected by the artist,” according to a statement by the academy.

Now, I haven’t seen the sculpture and it’s quite possible that it is a piece of crap. That’s not the point of this story.

Despite the rejection, Mr. Hensel still has a piece in the London gallery’s summer exhibition. And perhaps, through the publicity he obtained as a result of the circumstances surrounding its selection, he may gain more recognition (and presumably thus more sales) than he would have if the gallery had done as he had expected.

Have you ever bought the perfect Christmas present for a toddler? You search high and low to find the thing, the kid gleefully unwraps the present, and the parent laboriously frees the toy from the packaging. Then the kid promptly ignores the toy and spends hours playing with the box. This is pretty much what happened to Mr. Hensel.

Mr. Hensel did not send the base in the same container as the sculpture. The people in charge of the summer exhibition – those hoity-toity know-it-alls with the keen artistic eyes – apparently fail to recognize functional relationships. Put these people in charge of a construction site and you’ll be left with a tower of scaffolding but no building.

In contrast to his sculpture, which apparently lacked sufficient artistic merit, they deemed the base meritorious. The base – a pedestal and a stick – was accepted and now is Mr. Hensel’s “artwork” currently on display at the gallery.