Moved Reply:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

And I still believe that the judgement of posterity it a better determinant than most.

Except that this comdemns to the non-art category every single one of the many, many people who wrote/painted/composed/sculpted or whatever whose works are no longer remembered. For every Shakespeare there are tens of thousands of people who wrote plays that may have been good, may have been terrible or may hyave been works of sublime genius but which are now forgotten utterly. They cannot be art becasue posterity has not judged them so.

Moved Reply:

quote:

They cannot be art becasue posterity has not judged them so.

I never suggested it was perfect - just that it was better than most. And along with the other determinant, that it stands on its own without too much explanation, I still believe these criteria are probably closer than any others I've ever seen.

Of course, people's memories and even written records are fallible and there are, as you have suggested, many whose works have been forgotten. But, providing they have been recorded (and nothing that has not been recorded can be judged by posterity, no matter how good it might have been) then there is always a chance that their work can be re-discovered and re-assessed. This is certainly true of music; there are many composers whose work goes through periods of complete neglect but, eventually, their compositions might be played and can then be judged.

Shakespeare's contemporaries, if their work is extant, can be judged by posterity if someone takes the trouble to stage one of their plays. But if no record exists then we have to reply on hearsay as to whether their work was good art or bad art - or even art at all.

Maybe I should try to explain my position more fully. I don't think it's coming across properly.

The reason the comparison with beer (or with many other things) is inapproprite is that it is perfectly possible to formulate a sensible definition for beer. You can make a list of the ingredients and processes involved and then say "If it matches this list it's beer, if it doesn't it isn't". People may differ about what those ingredients should be and will certainly differ about what constitutes good or bad beer but at the end you can say "this is my definition and by my definition this is/isn't beer".

I do not believe that this is possible with art. The term is simply too vague and all encompassing to stand a sensible definition.

Here, for example are the definitions from the Collins Dictionary that I have to hand, and my reasons as to why I disagree with them.

quote:

the creation of works of beauty or other special significance

I don't agree with this because I don't think art necessarilly has to be beautiful or significant and I think there are many things which are beautiful and significant that aren't art.

quote:

the imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination

This is better but I don't think art needs to be representational of anything. Islamic art for example has many beautiful patterns that are specifically not representational.

quote:

the products of mans creative activities, works of art collectively, esp the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance and literature

There are two separate problems here. The second part is a circular definition "art is works of art" which gets us no further. The first part isn't a definition of art it encompasses everything ever made by anyone from a beefburger to a battleship.

quote:

any branch of the visual arts especially painting

Back to the circular definition problem. You cannot define art by using a reference to art.

There are others definitions given mainly in relation to the use of "art" as a modifier - "art film", "art movement" etc.

Do any of those do it for me? No. They will do as a definition of the word in a dictionary where space and reader patience is limited but they don't begin, for me, to define art.

Of course you can accuse my definition of a certain circularity. Art is what artists make. Artists are people who make art.
But that isn't really what I'm saying.
My argument is that if anyone (doesn't have to be an artist) produces something with the intention of it being art then by definition that's what it is. If I nail a bag of frozen peas to a plank and stand it up in my garden and say that it's a piece of art called "The imprisonment of nature" then one of two things is certainly true. Either I am sincere in my intention to make this piece of art and sincere in my description of it OR I am intentionally trying to con you into thinking that I am sincere.

In the latter case I'd say it isn't art, it's a deliberate con trick.
In the former though I'd say it is art. It is certainly not good art but the fact that I intended it to be art and that I had a rationale behind it when I produced it make it art. I made it, I say it's art, I'm sincere in my statement. It's art.

All the other arguments presented in this thread are not in my view discussing "what is art" they are discussing "what is good art". Saying no one doubts that Constable or Turner are art is saying nothing at all. It's not refuting or confirming anything. Of course Constable and Turner are art but that's attempting to define by example and that comes down to the viewer saying "this is art because I like it and I say its art" while a sliced up cow in formaldehyde "isn't art because I don't like it and I say it's not art".

You cannot define art by example because no two people will have the same examples and it's a cast iron certainty that there will be some things that I think are art that you don't. And that's true whoever I am and whoever you are.

You cannot define art by the "I-know-what-I-like" principle because that is simply setting yourself up as an authority and saying that your opinion is better than everyone else's.

Let's look for a moment at Richard's proposed definition.

quote:

My criteria for art are simple and but two.

1. Does it have to be explained? If it does, it's probably not art and

2. Is it still considered art by later generations? And I accept that the second criterion can only be applied retrospectively. Again, if future generations can't see what the earlier generation could see in it then it's probably not art.

The first part of this is to me simply arrogant nonsense. If I can understand it then it's art. If I can't then it isn't. Fundamentally it is equating "art" with "representational art" and condemning everything that needs explanation or debate to the non-art dustbin.

The second part of this, if applied, means that no one can ever produce a piece of art beause it won't be art until long after he or she is dead and posterity has judged it. I don't like Tracy Emin's art but one thing I can say with absolute total certainty - I have no idea how she will be viewed in a hundred years time. She may be viewed as an artistic genius, she may be viewed as a charlatan, she may be forgotten completely. (Incidentally if she is ajudged a genius does that mean, Richard, that your decendents will be able to say "see great-great grandpappy was wrong - it is art after all"?)

Saying that anything must be considered art a hundred or two hundred years after its creation is passing the buck and, in fact, is about as useless as a definition as I can imagine.

So now lets consider my definition (and expand it a little).

Art is anything that has been sincerely created by someone intending it to be art and subsequently, sincerely, claiming it to be art.

I really can't see what's wrong with this definition. As soon as you say, "well you've hung an empty frame on the wall and called it 'defining art' but that's not art is it", what you are really saying is "I don't understand your concept, I don't like it, I think you are trying to con me therefore it can't be art".
What you are doing is confusing the question of "what is art" with "what is good art" again. There are only the two possibilities again. Either the artist is trying to con you which makes him/her a liar or the artist is sincere which, to my mind makes it a piece of art.

You may well believe that Tracy Emin is a conwoman, that Damien Hirst is a charaltan. You may well wish to call both of them liars when they describe themselves as artists. I don't like the work of either of them but I believe they are sincere and genuine in their intention to make art and therefore what they make is art. Personally I think it's terrible art but it's art.

----------------------------------------

Does any of that clarify my position for anyone?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

The first part of this is to me simply arrogant nonsense. If I can understand it then it's art. If I can't then it isn't.

That is NOT what I said. I deliberately used the passive voice so as NOT to suggest that it was only my understanding that mattered. I could have expanded the criterion further by making it, "...If it can readily be understood by the majority of normally educated people, familiar with the situations and concepts of the place and period of creation of the art, then it is probably art. If it needs lengthy explanation to such people, then is is probably not..." Incidentally, my two criteria were just that, criteria; neither singly or jointly were they supposed to be definitions of art.

So far as Bob's "If the artist believes it is art, then it is" definition - I have already raised a number of objections to this and I will raise one more. If the artist did NOT believe it was art - then does that mean it's not art? I suspect than there are many creators whom we now revere as great artists, who simply considered themselves to be competent artisans. I suspect, too, that many modern artists do not genuinely believe that their work is art (no matter what they claim). There are con-merchants in every field of human endeavour and I see no reason to exclude artists. Bob might think that Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin are genuine artists with a genuine belief that what they are producing is art; I do not. And, short of arranging a lie-detector test I doubt we'll ever know the truth. But if I reckoned I could win a Turner Prize by getting the judges to look at the faulty fluorescent tube in my garage and call it a work of art entitled "Lights going on and off" then I'd take the cash and run, never admitting in public that I was taking the mickey.

Which is one reason why I coupled my two criteria. Obviously only future generations can judge present-day art, but we can judge the art of the past. Furthermore, we are often able to judge it and see how our judgement compares with that of contemporaries. Much art was denigrated when it was new but later generations have learnt to appreciate and love it. And much art was denigrated when it was new and has been forgotten or reviled by later generations. So the judgement of posterity is a valid one - that it can't be used right now to judge present-day art does not invalidate it as a method of judgement.

The one thing that we can all agree on is that it is not easy to define art - but by any definition I can accept, most of the Turner Prize entries of the past few years are not art.

I give up.

I give up.

Let me join you.

How many critics does it take to change a light bulb?

Ask me again in two hundred years when we can say for sure that this really is a light bulb.

quote:

I don't really have a problem with somebody telling me that he has a different definition of what is art. I just have a problem with that person telling me that his definition is correct and mine is rubbish. The words good and bad are greatly overloaded meaningwise, because they are terms of both aesthetic and ethical judgment.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel, Zmj. For example, it doesn't mean you are a lower class human being simply because you listen to rap music, rather than Mozart...or, for that matter, if you drink Bud versus Coniston's Bluebird Bitter (which is irrelevant, I know, Bob). Now, I happen to prefer Mozart, but let the other person have his preference. Will I articulate why my preference? Absolutely! However, will I tell him that his choice is "crap?" Never. The same applies to any type of art others prefer. Once one believes that way, I think it is easier to define art Bob's way. (BTW, in previous threads I have vehemently disagreed with Bob's definition; I've just begun to see his point.). Bob made an excellent point when he pointed out to Richard that Richard's painted wall isn't art because he hadn't painted it thinking it to be an art masterpiece in the first place. To me, that is a good distinction.

Having said all of that, there are types of art that I just don't understand. For example, and I might have mentioned it here before, there used to be a huge, framed, painting in the Chicago Art Institute that looked like a black painted wall to me. I didn't like it, nor did I understand what it was about. Yet, perhaps there were brushstrokes that I didn't understand or a story similar to the one Bob referred to in his poem. I am certainly willing to call it art and maybe I'd even appreciate it if I knew more. (Yet, I was quite pleased that it is no longer there!)

Richard, by the way you are discussing art, I'd say that those who find Constable's paintings as "rubbish" (and there are many) also don't consider it art. After all, if you don't consider something as art because you don't understand it or because you think it to be "rubbish," the absolute same could be true of others. Perhaps your actual definition is that each individual has his/her own definition as to what is art. In reality, that may not be a bad definition.

[Thanks, Arnie, for splitting this thread! ]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Against my better judgement I'll have one more go.

Here's a thought experiment.

The year is 3007. The world has become predominantly Islamic. The Qur'an specifically forbids idols and idolatry. This would include most of the religious statuary and art of the last 3000 years of the western world. This therefore is no longer considered by the great mass of the population, particularly by the cultured and intellectual classes, to be art. In fact it is specifically considered to not be art.
(Other figurative art is tolerated because the Qur'an, contrary to popular belief, does not specifically forbid it.)

So by your definition Richard this wasn't art (because insufficient time had passed for posterity to judge it), then it was art (because enough people believed it to be art) and now it isn't art again because enough people believe it not to be art. Yet none of it has changed. The statues are the same as they ever were, the paintings are the same as they ever were.

I'm sorry but using a definition that is so constantly mutable is building your house on sand. You may object to my definition but yours is totally useless as a definition.

And that definitely is my last word on the sunject.

quote:

So by your definition Richard this wasn't art

I have said it before, and will say it again since it's clearly not yet sunk in. I have not produced a definition of art. I have given two criteria and by no stretch of the imagination should anyone infer that they are definitions. They are not and I have never implied that they are. But what I do say is they do help determine whether a thing is art or not.

quote:

You may object to my definition but yours is totally useless as a definition.

I agree. See above.

And insofar as the changing situation is concerned - yes, I agree that can happen. Much of what was considered great music a few centuries ago is not thus considered now - but it is still regarded as art.

quote:

Richard, by the way you are discussing art, I'd say that those who find Constable's paintings as "rubbish" (and there are many) also don't consider it art.

I doubt you'd find many people who consider Constable's paintings to be "rubbish", although clearly you'd be able to find people around that don't like them - but that's different. Nowhere have I ever said said that because I, or someone else, doesn't like a thing then it's not art - or even that it's bad art.

quote:

Bob made an excellent point when he pointed out to Richard that Richard's painted wall isn't art because he hadn't painted it thinking it to be an art masterpiece in the first place. To me, that is a good distinction.

But see my further points on this topic. If an artist created something and didn't think it was art - does that mean it's never art? And how about if the artist only SAID that he or she thought it was art and was actually telling porkies? Is it art up until the moment the lie is discovered - and then it is just junk? What happens when, on her death bed, Tracey Emin admits that her art submissions were all simply spoofs and that she was just ripping off a gullible art world (which I suspect is no more than the truth). Does her bad art suddenly stop being art at all? Clearly this definition is full as full of holes as is an artistic cullender.

Incidentally I do have one further comment. I've just been reading some of the previous goes around on this topic and I'd like to say...

...Richard, it's about bloody time you got that light in your garage fixed.

quote:

Few people would disagree that Shakespeare's, Beethoven's and Constable's creations are all art.

Richard, do you seriously believe that theatre is art? After all, if a woman obsessively washing her hands on stage is art, then any woman anywhere obsessively washing her hands is art. Or might intentionality and context be relevant?

quote:

...Richard, it's about bloody time you got that light in your garage fixed.

I'm still hoping it'll get me a Turner Prize, though.

quote:

Richard, do you seriously believe that theatre is art? After all, if a woman obsessively washing her hands on stage is art, then any woman anywhere obsessively washing her hands is art.

Assuming this is a serious post, I would say this makes the point as well as any I have seen. There is good theatre (which is art) bad theatre (which is bad art) and theatre that means sweet Fanny Adams (which isn't art at all).

Some definitions of art via Google. Not all of them about the same thing. My favorite: "a form of human activity created primarily as an aesthetic expression, especially, but not limited to drawing, painting and sculpture". Also, "Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both" is rather good, too.

I like

quote:

The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium.

This essay does a good job of beginning a definition of art, though it seems specific to one kind of art, i.e., painting. It also has some criteria.

quote:

1. Anything can be a work of art.

2. It takes a representative of the art-world to make a work of art.

3. The criterion of art lies in some directly perceptible property that the work of art has.

4. The act of painting has to be undertaken intentionally and in a special way in order to be art.

5. Art is artefacts or images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication.

6. The mysterious is the source of all true art.

One of the philosophers of art mentioned is Arthur Danto, many of whose books I own and have read. His investigations of what art is today are really quite lucid.

quote:

quote:
Richard, do you seriously believe that theatre is art? After all, if a woman obsessively washing her hands on stage is art, then any woman anywhere obsessively washing her hands is art.


Assuming this is a serious post,

At least as serious as this one:

quote:

Tracey Emins's dirty unmade bed being an obvious example. If her dirty unmade bed is art then so is everyone else's dirty unmade bed. Since they are not art, then her submission is not art.

If Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is art, then every bickering couple is art. Since every bickering couple is not art, then Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is not art. QED

Perfect...and pithy, neveu. Let's see the answer to this one. <waiting patiently>

quote:

If Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is art, then every bickering couple is art. Since every bickering couple is not art, then Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is not art. QED

Who's afraid of Virginia Wolf is not a bickering couple. It's a play and/or film. That it has as its subject a bickering couple doesn't make it a bickering couple.

In the same way, Constable's Haywain is neither a river nor a cart. It's a painting.

Kalleh's framed piece of blank wall is a framed piece of blank wall - although some apparently claim it to be a work of art.

quote:

This essay does a good job of beginning a definition of art, though it seems specific to one kind of art, i.e., painting. It also has some criteria.

I like much of what is said - but disagree with one of the criteria: "Anything can be a piece of art"

That is just the point I am trying to make - not everything can be a piece of art - although anyone can claim it to be a piece of art. I will never agree that periods of silence can be music, blank canvasses be paintings or collections of meaningless words and phrases poetry - except in the alleged view of their creators.

And I am quite convinced that many of these are no more, and no less, than con artists.

quote:

Who's afraid of Virginia Wolf is not a bickering couple. It's a play and/or film.

Tracy Emin's unmade bed is not an unmade bed. It's a sculpture.

You took the words out of my mouth, neveu.

quote:

Kalleh's framed piece of blank wall is a framed piece of blank wall - although some apparently claim it to be a work of art.

Richard, you didn't even see it. I admitted that there could have been something about it that I didn't understand or know enough about. I don't know as much about contemporary art as I could. And I don't believe, as you do, that in order for something to be considered art, you should be able to understand it. I think the beauty of art can be studying it and then realizing so much more about the piece. That's how I've learned to admire the French impressionists so.

BTW, I truly admire people who admit when they are wrong or who change their minds because of an intellectual discussion. That's why I could never understand the complaints about Kerry for "flip-flopping." I'd much rather see a considered change in belief, based on study, than someone standing up for something no matter what the data shows. For example, when this discussion started a few years ago, I had vehmently disagreed with Bob's definition of art. I was actually shocked that he'd say that! However, over time and after thinking about it and discussing it here, I've come around to Bob's as being the best definition I've seen.

By one of these amazing coincidences, The Times had a couple of items yesterday Tuesday 19 June) that add to this debate. The first is a fairly trite item but the second has made me understand much about the reasons why obscene sums of money are paid for "Art" which has about as much artistic virtue as, say, an unmade bed. For those who can't get hold of a copy of The Times, I am summarising the articles here.

The first item was in Times where is shown a pictures from self-styled "guerilla artist" Banksy, entitled "pie-face" which is now on sale and expected to make between £70,000 and £100,000. Banksy is therefore a significant modern artist by most art fanciers' criteria and here's what he has to say about the art business:

"The art world is the biggest joke going. It's probably the easiest business in the world to walk into with no talent and make a few bucks"

I couldn't have put it better myself.

But the second item, in the main newspaper, really made me think. This was an article about Charles Saatchi, a multi-millionaire who has just bought a young art student's entire exhibition (collages of photographic images made up to look like an internet advertisement) for £4,500. My first reaction was, "That Charles Saatchi has more money than sense (which is what I tend to think about people who fritter money away on rubbish) but I then read further and found, far from being a person that has so much money he just wants rid of it, Saatchi is actually following a very clever business model and I have completely changed my views.

Saatchi, of course, made his money from advertising and knows better than most the power of promotion. Promote something and claim it's wonderful and, no matter how little merit it actually has, a lot of people will buy it. Hence the bottled-water boom or the success of Dudweiser.

So why does Charles Saatchi spend his cash in this way. Very simple. There are people around who are influenced by the actions of the very wealthy and emulate what they do. Saatchi buys someone's artistic creation and, they reason, that artist's stuff must be good and they all buy some. And up rockets the price of the artist's work. And when its price gets high enough then what does art-lover Saatchi do? He sells his collection making a few more millions for himself. The artist, of course, will often then fall from favour and the value of his productions will drop - sometimes down as far as their true value.

He paid £150,000 for Tracey Emin's bed (actually worth about a fiver in a second-hand furniture shop) and now anything that she produces is perceived by the wealthy few to be worth lots of cash. That soiled bed is now valued by the art world at over a million pounds - not a bad return on £150,000 in just six years. Similarly Saatchi has made fortunes for other artists such as Damien Hirst, whose rotting cow's head (worth about 50 pence as dog-food) is valued by the art world at £1.4 million - just because Charles Saatchi once bought it.

I am sure that Saatchi isn't the only wealthy man who has discovered this clever way to make money from the gullible and I know that it's not just in art where this sort of trickery takes place. Get enough people to buy a worthless share and its price goes up. Sell at the right time and you make lots of money. It's the same principle.

Just don't confuse price with value. Rubbish is rubbish, no matter how much someone is prepared to pay for it.

I looked into the Turner Prize, and was amazed to see, pace all the critical vitriol about it, that it's funded by private companies. Gordon's Gin most recently. Usually, in the States, anti-art rhetoric of this sort is reserved for the few pieces which manage to get public (i.e., governmental) support. Of course, places like the NEA get less than 0.1% of what the Pentagon gets, but maybe the boys in braid are doing some kind of conceptual art in the Middle East.

quote:

Usually, in the States, anti-art rhetoric of this sort is reserved for the few pieces which manage to get public (i.e., governmental) support.

I have noticed this sort of thing myself. the "why are they wasting our money..." syndrome. And I have some sympathy with that point of view.

But I would draw an analogy with those who claim that such and such a beer is good simply because it's cheap and therefore good value. To which my response is that it might be cheap rubbish but it's still rubbish.

And so far as art is concerned, I'm glad it's not my money that's being wasted - but that doesn't alter the quality, of lack thereof, of the art. If it's rubbish it's rubbish no matter who pays for it.

Kalleh, the blamk wall you are talking about, is it a very large piece, filling a whole wall facing you as you enter the modern art gallery and predominantly, though not entirely in black?

quote:

I'm glad it's not my money that's being wasted

The shareholders can always complain if they don't like it. On the other hand, gin-drinkers also might feel they have reason to be aggrieved as the money for such sponsorship deals ultimately comes from their pockets.

The shareholders can always complain if they don't like it. On the other hand, gin-drinkers also might feel they have reason to be aggrieved as the money for such sponsorship deals ultimately comes from their pockets.

Yes, but, in the final analysis, corporations can still do whatever they want with their bucks (free market and all that rubbish), and the shareholders be damned. They can pull their investment out of said company and reinvest in some kitsch-concern like Franklin Mint.

I understand Gordon's strategy, though, as there's a saying in Hollywood that "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

I've a suggestion for Gordon's: how about renaming the prize the Hogarth prize?

Hogarth prize

An interesting idea. Sadly, somebody's beat you to it. Here's an interesting opinion from an art critic, Mark Glazebrook.

quote:

"The art world is the biggest joke going. It's probably the easiest business in the world to walk into with no talent and make a few bucks"

Of course, that's one man's opinion, and I will take it just as that.

Richard, if possible, I'd like to see the articles you referred to, just to see the context. Sometimes it is hard to remove one quote or a couple of ideas and still maintain the flavor of the article.

As for the money, let's get real. Have you seen the salaries of sports stars recently? Entertainers? Large company CEOs? When you are talking 4,500 pounds (about $9,000), it's peanuts. The same is true, really, with the 150,000 pounds (about $300,000) for Tracey Emin's bed that we've been referring to throughout. I don't know a thing about Damien Hirst's rotting cow's head (and probably don't want to!), but for $2.8 M, that does seem out of range. On the other hand, compared to the best-paid celebrities, it's peanuts, too; similarly with CEOs. It's all relative.

I also still think we are confusing "art" with "good art." I'd agree that the black wall (yes, Bob, if I recall, that's what the black wall looked like, though I've never paid much attention to it because I hate it) or the unmade bed aren't "good art," in my humble opinion; others like them and good for them! But those pieces are art. To me that is the crux of this whole question being asked here. Are those pieces art or not? I think so; Richard, you apparently don't. I could even live with that. What I don't like to hear, though, is that judgmental attitude that all those who think the black wall is art are "the biggest jokes in town." That is an arrogant point of view by Bansky (unless the context would provide more information), which to me says that anything Bansky likes is good art, but anything else is a joke. That's where I differ with people who take it upon themselves to know precisely what good art is.

quote:

Richard, I'd have loved to have seen the articles you referred to, just to see the context. Sometimes it is hard to remove one quote or a couple of ideas and still maintain the flavor of the article.

You can see the article easily enough. Either buy a copy of Tuesday's "Times" from your local newsagent or log onto http://www.timesonline.co.uk As a foreigner you might need to subscribe before you can see the article but I believe they give free trial subscriptions. If all else fails, let me know and I'll scan the articles for you and email them.

The £4,500 that Charles Saatchi paid was for an unknown art student's graduation exhibition. Charles Saatchi is hoping that this will give such a boost to James Howard (that's the man's name) that others will eagerly buy his work and it will soar in value. Once it has become worth a hundred times as much then Charles Saatchi will sell his collection, making a a cool half a million quid on the deal.

I agree that most football stars and other celebrities are overpaid but that wasn't the point I was making. My point was simply that Saatchi's inflation of the prices of pieces of conceptual art seems to be no more than a cynical act of exploitation of those wealthy enough, and stupid enough, to be taken in by it. Whether the actual amounts involved are more or less than top-ranking CEOs command matters not a jot insofar as this particular scheme (or should it be scam?) is concerned.

quote:

That is an arrogant point of view by Bansky (unless the context would provide more information), which to me says that anything I like is good art, but anything else is a joke.

I don't think that is at all what Banksy was saying. He is an artist whose work sells for huge amounts but he says nothing about what he likes or dislikes. All he is saying is that it is very easy to get on in the art world even if you have no talent for art whatsoever. And what he is implying, I think, is that you just have to know how to work the system and get the likes of Charles Saatchi to call your latest pickled calf's head, flickering light or unmade bed "a work of great genius" and away you go.

Nothing to do with artistic talent and everything to do with knowing how to work the system.

4'33" in convenient map form. Is it art yet?

Is it art yet?

New definition of art for the ages to come: "It ain't art unless Richard says it is."

quote:

I agree that most football stars and other celebrities are overpaid but that wasn't the point I was making. My point was simply that Saatchi's inflation of the prices of pieces of conceptual art seems to be no more than a cynical act of exploitation of those wealthy enough, and stupid enough, to be taken in by it.

I understand that wasn't your point. However my point was that it happens in many walks of life and seemingly (from the amounts) much more so in other areas.

As far as what your friend Bansky said, well, to me it's arrogant to think you have a handle on what is "artistic talent" and what is "no talent" but able to make a few bucks. You may surely disagree with me, but I am not wrong and you aren't right. In general, that's been my whole point really. There are no "rights" and "wrongs" in art. It's all about individual taste. I get the impression (and I haven't read Banksy's article) that neither you or Banksy agree with that. It may be a never-ending debate, though, and life is too short for that.

quote:

As far as what your friend Bansky said, well, to me it's arrogant to think you have a handle on what is "artistic talent" and what is "no talent" but able to make a few bucks.

He's no friend of mine; I don't even know the man except from the article in The Times. That article said he was an artist whose work fetched large sums and the quote was his, not mine. Because he is , apparently, a well-respected modern artist I felt that his remark carried weight.

And I agree with it, as I said. I think much of what passes for art these days is no more than a con - and I now know how the con works, as I explained.

Incidentally, I am not saying that modern art is all rubbish simply because it's modern, or that all traditional art is wonderful because it's old. Every generation has had its rubbish and every generation has seen its art scams. It just seems to me that there are rather more of them around right now.

Zmj,

Perhaps you miss my point. One of Hogarth's most famous works (I hesitate to add "of art") was Gin Lane. Even Richard might approve as he contrasted the squalor of Gin Lane with the relative idyll of Beer Street.

Perhaps you miss my point.

Probably. I had seen these two etchings before, so I'll just plead forgetfulness. I do see that there was an exhibition of his works earlier this year at the Tate.

I like Hogarth's work and went to a presentation recently by a speaker from the Tate, on this very man. Although "Beer Street" and "Gin Lane" are possibly Hogarth's most well-known works, he drew many more and, through his cartoons, was an astute commentator on the issues of his day.

Ironically (or maybe not) the presentation was at my and Kalleh's favourite pub - the Victoria - where we are able to quench our thirsts with ample quantities of London Pride, courtesy of Fullers.

quote:

He's no friend of mine

I knew who he was, Richard, and that you didn't know him personally. I meant that in a very broad sense. I guess I should have been more literal.

We will have to agree to disagree then, Richard, about your and Bansky's views. I find it similar to Jan Freeman's quote, which I posted in Links for Linguaphiles, about those who consider some words to be arrogant: "It's OK, of course, to dislike words and phrases, whatever your reasons; everyone has a little blacklist. But when you call them 'pretentious' or 'ignorant,' you're describing not just the words but the people who use them, implying that they're social climbers, snooty, or (in another common sneer) 'trying to sound educated.'" Only in this case, it would be okay to dislike certain art, but when one calls it "rubbish" or "trash," as Freeman says, you are not only describing the art but also the people who like it.

4'33" is on the order of Warhol's soup cans. Neither Cage nor Warhol is saying, "This should be considered art just as we consider Mozart and Vermeer art." They are being deliberately provocative. They are forcing the listener/viewer to think through the very issues being addressed here.

Yes, I've been to a "performance" of 4'33." Everybody knows of it, of course, so when you see it on the program, you know just what's coming. And the fact is that sitting through 4'33" changes you just as sitting through Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata changes you.

When you have 2-1/2 minutes to spare, press here, then relax and watch the Act of Creation.

But is it art?

I liked it, and it was fun to watch. Thanks, JT.

ON my dial up it'll take approximately an hour to download. What does the painting end up as?

It wouldn't play for me.

What does the painting end up as?

It's a portrait of Ray Charles whose music is playing throughout. You might look at the artist's website for some examples of his finished paintings.

Excellent. I've seen Rolf Harris create portraits and pictures in a similar way, but not so stylishly.

Here's another entry for your perusal... Art(?) in Motion.

Art(?) in Motion.

Very beautiful artworks.