In 1993, two Russian dissident artists, now working in the United States, attempted to discover, by way of consumer polling techniques including phone surveys, focus groups, and town meetings, what would be America’s most wanted painting. Drawing upon the resulting data set, they then composed a two paintings, titled them “The Most Wanted” and “The Least Wanted.” These they exhibited in a show called “The People’s Choice” in New York City’s Alternative Museum to an audience whose responses were reportedly both amused and scornful.
The project continued by conducting polls in several other nations, yielding for each a national profile in painting. The results were startling in their near-uniformity. “America’s Most Wanted,” it turns out, appears remarkably similar to those of other nations. They are all primarily blue landscapes.
Was it a hoax? Was it satire? The artists would never admit to either.
In a magazine article and then a subsequent book Painting by Numbers (1997) edited by Joann Wypijewski, the artists through interviews explore the significance of their project and paintings. They consistently defend the integrity and value of their work even as a reader may detect a sort of teasing, or winking. They may be putting you on, but you may be in on the joke too, so what’s the harm?
Philosopher Dennis Dutton, who wrote The Art Instinct (2009)- itself a landmark in the application of science to art criticism – called the project a “stunt” and their defense of it “exasperating.”
““The artists can not only paint in any style you’d like, they can serve up theoretical stew in any flavor you want. Most of what they say is a pseudo-profound mish-mash of cliches, truisms, and nonsense.””
The blue landscapes, and the data upon which are they are justified, provide a great deal to discuss, regardless of some of the bizarre statements by Komar and Melamid about them, to help to clarify certain questions concerning the meaning of taste and originality; the value and function of art, public access to, support for, and understanding of fine art; the role of the artist and creativity; and the status of art as it is attached to money, culture, and education. Add to that: the ever-growing insistence on quantification and measurement and the purported ability to meaningful poll a public to begin with.
So much!
The production of actual paintings based on data, as with “America’s Most Wanted” will point us to some of the pitfalls they may lie in our project to responsibly and successfully incorporate visual art in healthcare environments. We are aiming, after all, to make good choices, selecting artworks and imagery that are most likely to heal, that are least likely to do harm. And we are in search of the best data to inform these choices.
Perhaps we should not be so astonished to discover that the book Painting by Numbers is commonly cited in the evidence-base used by healthcare design practitioners. Still, whatever claims are being made based on this peculiar experiment in art and market research, we should bring to them our understanding of the source.
Again and again, we will ask, “Are these data valuable? Is this claim valid?”
Meanwhile, behold “America’s Most Wanted.” It is a placid blue landscape, peopled in the foreground by relaxed human figures, including George Washington, as well as a couple of deer and a hippopotamus at the shoreline. The sky is a vague, blue wash; the body of water is meaningless; the landscape it describes barely registers to this viewer.
Still, its composition is based on evidence, right? How is it possible to make a work of art that is ostensibly most wanted, but which no one seems to want?
“America’s Most Wanted,” 1993, Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid.