In the Eye of the Beholder

On a bit of a whim today, I decided to go to the San Jose Museum of Art downtown. My Fodor's guide to NoCal uses a star to indicate that it's one of their recommended picks and suggests that the SJ Museum doesn't try to compete with the larger art museums in San Francisco, but rather that it "does its own thing".

I lucked into an Andy Warhol exhibit -- the soup cans and repeating Marilyn Monroe's still intrigue me. There was also a photo essay tribute to Frida Kahlo and it was fascinating to learn a bit more about her back story.

And then I entered the gallery where the permanent collection was housed.

The very first exhibit was a little bit difficult to make out as I approached from across the open landing. But even at a distance, it had the distinct flavour of a barnyard animal. A dirty barnyard animal.

Standing in front of it with my head cocked to the side, I figured it was most definitely a pig. A very muddy pig. Draped over a stool. And it looked like real mud. (Dried by now, of course.)

I looked over at the wall and read the card that described the piece of art and listed the artist and her details. Under "Materials", it read: "Stuffed animals, mud, furry bathrobes, and wood stool."

I kid you not.

I read a bit further to find out that the dried mud-covered object had indeed once been a pastel-colored stuffed animal pig. He had then been wrapped in fuzzy bathrobes so that his shape as a pig was now only barely discernible. Then he had been liberally coated in mud, left to dry and then propped up on a wood stool for the San Jose Museum of Art.

According to the artist, the use of the bathrobes was important because they suggest a connection with the human body and may evoke feelings of comfort. (Even when coated in mud??)

The last line of the description said that the artist's use of those particular materials "calls into question our definition of art."

I'll say it does.