A Work of Art

[Thomas]

"A Work of Art" is a comic story that raises the perennial question, "What is art?" Though I suppose it is primarily a play on the well-known unwanted gift routine.

May it provide inspiration for those finishing up their holiday shopping.

"A Work of Art" is #093 on the Eldritch Press site: http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/jr/09...

[Sue]

Lol! What a cute story and rather a version of the fruit cake or such... given only to be regifted! A most timely (and here cautionary) tale! I enjoy Chekhov's writing as to the figures on the candelabra as women in "attitudes for the description of which I have neither the courage nor the fitting temperament"....

[Tamara]

It's funny how we can read the same story and see it in very different ways.
I thought Chekhov's description of the "work of art" suggested that it was actually a piece of junk i.e. the doctor's initial reaction when he saw it. It was only later Sasha convinced him it was a work of art.
I read the story as Chekhov poking fun at people who allow themselves to be convinced something is a masterpiece when, in actuality, it's nothing more than a piece of junk. We change our opinion only because those in the know are ooh-ing and aah-ing over it and we don't want to appear ignorant or uncultured. A bit like the emperor's new clothes.
As I say, my reading of the story may put it in a different light. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, and, alas, it probably won't be the last :)

[Tamara]

Patrice wrote: "tamara you sent me back to re read. it seemed to me that what you were saying was not far off from my observation.

the narrator describes the candelabra of artistic workmanship. the son says its a..."

Thank you for that, Patrice. Sometimes I wonder if I'm from a different planet because of the way I read things.

Not to get off the topic, but . . . John Berger did a fascinating documentary years ago for the BBC. It's called Ways of Seeing. He had a whole program on the nude in art. If I remember correctly, he defined naked as the way you see yourself; nude is how others see you.

[Tamara]

Patrice,
This is the link to the BBC series, Ways of Seeing with John Berger. Four episodes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4...

[Sue]

I recall taking my children to art museums back in the day...and it was my (then v.) young son who was horrified at the large images of nudes and would not look at them but tried to walk through the rooms as with blinders..lol..whilst my daughters took my cue and viewed them as art.

[David]

I see more of Sartre's "Hell is other People" in this piece when Sasha tells the doctor "Of course if you look at it from the point of view of the crowd. . ."

The story suggests that art that may be admired in private or in like-minded company similar to Shashkin's male friends, is an embarrassment in mixed company.

I think the story underscores how evaluation of art is really a private and subjective matter but in public it has the power, as does the rank of who owns the dog, to make chameleons of people.

At first I felt ashamed for the prudish embarrasment of the doctor and the boy seems to suggest that the innocence of youth is refreshingly not so concerned for their reputations as the adults. But then I had to question the sincerity of Sasha and his mother. Do they really appreciate its value or are just more people in the chain trying to get rid of the embarrassing thing? The fact the boy assumed a sentimental expression and appears to falter and repeat rehearsed high pressure sales lines belies their insincerity.

I also think because the piece is initially wrapped in a story about a painter who transfers his affections from his wife to his paintings of the female nude may indicate the deceased father transferred his affections from Sasha's mother to this piece of art, or at least forced her to put up with the embarrassment of him owning it. If so, it would reveal the ulterior reason for the mother to get rid of the piece as well as the No. 223 of the Financial Times. Of course there is also the fact that the mother and son carry on the antique business of the boy's father and giving it away seems the only way to move the piece.

I wonder if there really is a another half being regifted in another circle? I would not be surprised if it soon became a set of three.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "But then I had to question the sincerity of Sasha and his mother. Do they really appreciate its value or are just more people in the chain trying to get rid of the embarrassing thing? The fact the boy assumed a sentimental expression and appears to falter and repeat rehearsed high pressure sales lines belies their insincerity."

I also wonder why Sasha needs to repeat over and over that he is his "mother's only son"... as if this were a fact in dispute.

It's also interesting that none of the recipients will consider throwing the candelabra away. They all seem to appreciate it despite its obscenity.

[Genni]

Patrice wrote: "yes, i thought of the fruitcake that no one wants.

i also thought of how, today, in sophisticated circles, people are hesitant to see what they see. we are supposed to look at art as something apa..."

I love this observation, Partrice.

[Genni]

David wrote: "Do they really appreciate its value or are just more people in the chain trying to get rid of the embarrassing thing? The fact the boy assumed a sentimental expression and appears to falter and repeat rehearsed high pressure sales lines belies their insincerity."

I agree, David. Great observation.

[Brit]

Thomas wrote: "It's also interesting that none of the recipients will consider throwing the candelabra away. They all seem to appreciate it despite its obscenity."

It might be that they appreciated the candelabra as art, or maybe they lived in a society that did not throw things away. Anton Chekhov lived from 1860-1904.

By the way, his description of the obscenity is brilliant. There is nothing graphic, but only hints: "two female figures in the costume of Eve and in attitudes for the description of which I have neither the courage nor the fitting temperament."

[Kathy]

I agree with David and Genni that there's a strong hint of insincerity here on Sasha's part.
I also noticed the familiar structure of a joke. It is always told in three parts, and the third part is where the twist occurs. So, the doctor gives it away to the lawyer; the lawyer gives it away to the actor; and in the third exchange, the actor sells it back to the original owner, with the twist that Sasha isn't offended as we might expect to see it come around again. Instead, he assumes it's the missing piece of the pair!
This made me wonder: how old is this three-part joke structure? It's so familiar, and obviously it crosses cultural boundaries.