More Than the Surface, Please

John Stossel. Known for telling it like it is. He certainly rides a high horse; but oftentimes, his opinions are waist-high in ethos, logos and pathos. On 11 March 2005, Stossel broadcast yet another Give Me a Break story, this one begging the question, “You Call That Art?” His argument is as simple and as complex as the question details. Who decides where to draw the line between that which is art and that which is junk? “How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?” (1). Stossel’s angle of persuasion was represented through a quiz available in the article, an excellent way to argue with the intent to find truth and make a point, rather than simply fight to be right. “Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff? We ran a test. On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not.” The pieces shown covered everything from the work of four years olds to a five dollar find at the thrift store to Willem de Kooning’s “A Tree in Naples.” The thrift-store-find won out as the most likely to be considered art. Even the professionals, artists and art historians, could not hit the nail on the head. “One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as ‘a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art’” (2). Sometimes a search for answers leads to more questions, as exemplified when Stossel came to the notion that maybe, “it's just all in the eye of the beholder?” (2). Art historian, Hoover explains, "I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder […] you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning” (2). In which case, Stossel had yet to arrive at a definition for modern art. Then he came across one artist’s definition of art. “An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, ‘The function of art is to make rich people feel more important’” (3). Which led Stossel to conclude his argument with the idea that “whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things” (3).
The main objective of Stossel’s argument was to address two issues: 1. To point out that much artwork, specifically modern artwork, is lacking definable and substantive signs as to its qualification to be considered “art;” 2. And to make known that taxpayers dollars are funding these illusive “masterpieces.” He starts off with a rhetorical question to get the juices flowing, “You Call That Art?” Much of the audience he is trying to reach is likely able to recall an instance where something close to this phrase entered the mind. Then he leads off the article with an example that his viewers can experience immediate relevance with, “The Gates” in New York’s Central Park. When this massive “artwork” hit the scene, opinions ran the gamut. So Stossel is making an appeal to passion, pathos, right from the start. He moves on to establish the marketplace point of “gee, I’m not sure; but according to people like you […]” as displayed through the quiz. He sells his theories by appealing to logic, logos. The result of this tactic is that agreeing with his argument only makes sense, especially when one can look right at the pictures and see that according to visual content alone, the art of a four year old deserves to be rated alongside Kasimir Malevich’s Black Circle. Then throughout the article he verifies his argument through the appeal to ethics, ethos, which in this case is done by establishing a standard of credibility. He goes to those who are supposed to know what they are talking about. He asks questions, rather than making bottom-line-statements. He does research. He supports his opinions with examples. He relies upon a source of past credibility. He presents himself as being just like the people, only he comes with the journalist’s pad and pen and video camera. He even creates credibility through his accuracy in spelling, grammar, and word choice.
The context of his message is tricky. While he will be picked on perhaps by those who celebrate every aspect of the arts, he will be praised perhaps by those who consider themselves conservative or those who consider themselves part of “middle America” or perhaps by those who consider themselves “Stossel fans” (though few may feel courage to say so). In this case, Stossel knows his audience well enough to know that the context of his media message is in a comfortable place. Presenting his message in the context of television and the world wide web gives him an ironic edge. He utilizes a machine for the masses to confront an issue that, as he faced in the article, is personal. If in part, art is “in the eyes’ of the beholder,” then how can you attempt to form generalizations that extend to the masses, and more so, to the pocketbooks of the masses. His assumptions become his calamitous error, which are not all that calamitous since his argument needs not focus on much else. He assumes some of the fine points about art without giving them proper presentation, which is not necessarily a fault, considering his audience.
The fact is that at the heart of the actual argument, apart from his rhetoric, there exists a balance between the right to question modern art and the right to create modern art. Modern art places a strong focus on “me, myself and I” and often will altogether dismiss the objective of art. Art should express a balance between the fatality and the hope of humanity. It should both delve into the imperfection and the longing for perfection. It is the good and the bad. An excellent standard for the balance between the hurt of reality and the hope of possibility is Michelangelo’s Pietà . This statue pictures Jesus lying limp in His mother’s arms. It shows the utter despondency of death, but the grace and peace of a hope foretold. Whether one accepts the statue as a symbol of truth or not, the reality and hope this artwork displays is inescapable. Most of modern art deals with emotions alone. It is usually void of a balance between two realities, pain and hope; and often focuses on only one aspect of life, either pain or hope. In addition, modern art is often depicted as being in touch with the common man; but that is not the case. Unless a common person knows the complexities of the history behind the piece of work or the complexities of the style, content, skill, creativity, et cetera of the piece of work, then the only use a modern artwork has for the common person is how it looks. “That’s pretty; that’s ugly; that’s weird; that’s a black circle […]” All one can do is state the obvious and maybe hypothesize what it could possibly mean. And if it could possibly mean anything to any person, then what if, just what if, it could mean nothing altogether. Beauty is more than canvas deep. If all the “beauty” retrieved from a piece of art is found on the surface alone, then it cannot be true beauty. Art comes with a strong legacy. When looking at any piece of art, the artwork should be held against the standards of time, through all cultures from Antiquities to Christendom. Then and only then can Modernity come up to bat. The problem with modern art is that it is viewed without the breadth and depth from which it was born.
In conclusion, Stossel’s argument was lacking, but fitting for his purposes and art should be definable. Modern art, or rather “look art,” bases everything in emotionality. There is no story, just sadness. There is no purpose, just anger. There is no relief, just longing. Stossel faced the argument of when and where art becomes art, but he only stopped at your wallet. When you face down the totality of art, you should be able to reach right down into the soul.

Works Cited
Stossel, John. Gimme a Break. 2006, ABCNews. 5 Sept. 2006. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=563146&page=1.
.