Bilbao's Famous Building

We visited lovely San Sebastian in Northern coastal Spain and enjoyed the tapas bar visits just like the locals. But, since we were so close to Bilbao, there was a strong magnetic attraction to drive to visit its world-famous Guggenheim museum. This is one of those cases where architecture puts a city on the world stage, just like Sydney and its Opera House.

And, in this case, the day trip was rewarding. The Guggenheim lived up to its reputation and a promenade through its galleries was a delight.



I have to say, I do find some modern art challenging. I give it respect, but sometimes want to snigger at some of the items on display. Some works appear that they have used little technique to produce and could be done by a good primary school student.

My own criteria is by asking the question, "Could I create or replicate this?". If the answer is "Yes", then I can't help but dismiss the work. But I do try to understand. We have visited London's Tate and many other galleries and there are many excellent works that provoke thought and appeal to my taste. But in the mix are others that makes me wonder that either someone is having a joke on us, or there is a mighty big con-job going on.

The problem with the arts is that there appears to be no criteria for quality. Maybe it’s the scientist in me, but some things in life seem more easily measured. The Olympic motto is Citius, Altius, Fortius, swifter, higher, stronger; each a measurable concept.

With the arts, what criteria are there for quality? Maybe a work is influential, innovative, of historical significance, or perhaps controversial. But influential or controversial, or even shocking is not sufficient to measure quality. Strangely, the controversy surrounding a painting can become part of its allure. Pollock’s Blue Poles is a must-see when it comes to town, if only to see what the fuss was about when it became a symbol of Whitlam government wastefulness.

And is there a rarity value in art? Did Picasso start producing many low-quality works in his later years, cashing in on his fame, because everyone wanted a piece of Picasso?

My own art gallery strategy is to wander through galleries and linger on works that captivate my interest - then enjoy them.


Guggenheim had a temporary exhibition of Indian artist Aanish Kapoor, and some exhibits were very appealing. The visit was memorable for us, and well worth the trip.

I wonder what artists think about the work of their peers. Are they dismissive or do they hold the work of other artists in high esteem? Did Jackson Pollock think of himself as a good artist, like Botticelli or Leonardo would regard their own talents? Were Dali or Warhol just good self-promoters? All have been influential, but perhaps only the modern artists would be described as controversial.