And incidentally both Tracey Emin and I agree with you that "My Bed" (to use the correct title) isn't a sculpture. It's an installation. They are different forms.

And no. I don't particularly like it, as I've said before, but that doesn't make me right or give me the right to suggest that it's not art.

quote:

And no. I don't particularly like it, as I've said before, but that doesn't make me right or give me the right to suggest that it's not art.

Does that mean you accept my contention that my free verse earlier was Art?

Who here has seen "Groundhog Day?" Do you see any similarities between that movie and our "what is art" discussions that seem to crop up every so often? How many of these discussions have we locked?

I don't want to be disrespectful, Richard, but I do think part of the problem with this continuous argument is that you think everyone agrees with your taste. This comment is a good example:

quote:

But some so-called modern art is created by those who seem to have zero talent and put in next to zero effort. Where is the talent, ability and effort in creating a space, fitted with a light that goes on and off, and calling it a great work of art? Which nomenclature the Turner prize judges seem to have accepted since they awarded the top prize to this effortless, boring and singularly unattractive creation.

You see, there are a lot of people in the world. I am certain that some think modern artists have talent. You have to understand that just like not everyone likes classical music, not everyone likes limericks (z, for example) or modern art or Tracey Emin or whatever. On the other hand, others love classical music, limericks, modern art or Tracey Emin. Can't you see that? Do you really think that everyone has your views? You might not agree with others that Emin's "My Bed" is good art, but it surely is art. [I wonder how many times I've said that here. ]

Proofreader, just to be clear, I think every Wordcrafter sees limericks as poetry. z, I do not find limericks easy to write...at least the ones I consider to be good ones. Oh, and thanks, z, for the facts on John Cage. Sometimes when we get passionate here, we let the facts fly into the wind.

Now, having argued with Richard, I have to admit this (and I think it is my own ignorance), I do have a hard time separating free verse from prose. I assume this (one of my favorites!) is prose and not poetry?

quote:

Where is the talent, ability and effort in creating a space, fitted with a light that goes on and off, and calling it a great work of art?

My question was the above. And if one agrees that it takes talent to create art, then this isn't art.

Of course, it is impossible to agree whether or not a thing is a work of art unless we can first work out a definition of art, with which we all agree. And that we have to date failed to do. I have already shared with you my own criteria (not a definition, I stress)- that art must take talent to create and must be understandable to a normally educated person without explanation - and by those criteria neither of the works under discussion are art.

I will try to work out a definition of art and post it here.

And, incidentally, I do not disagree with your contention about peoples likes and dislikes; there are people around who enjoy being abused for sexual gratification. That is their preference and one that I do not share - but they are not "wrong" in their preference.

quote:

Proofreader, just to be clear, I think every Wordcrafter sees limericks as poetry.

I said Wordcrafters delight in limericking (for the most part) but the problem as I see it is limericking is not regarded as a higher art form. If someone hears the beginning of a poem in limerick rhythm, they immediately think it must be about a trivial, funny, or dirty subject treated in a light-hearted manner.

For example,

Once a man rode a horse north of town
Warning all where the Brits could be found. . .

Would you think that would mark a serious attempt to relate Paul Revere's ride?

Not likely.

And it's equally unlikely that a serious poet would attempt it in this way either, knowing it would be ignored by the Artistic Community.

Once a man rode a horse north of town
Warning all where the Brits could be found ...

Perhaps there is something inherently funny about English anapests in groups of three or two.

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere ...

Longfellow wrote Paul Revere's Ride in dactylic trimeter, and a dactyl is an inverted anapest. Now that's funny, like listening to rock songs backwards. (Though here do double dactyls come into it?)

[Rewritten to reflect reality.]

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

quote:

My question was the above. And if one agrees that it takes talent to create art, then this isn't art.

I did answer your question, though it wasn't the answer you wanted. You wanted me to get into the argument of talent (just as in the other thread you wanted us to argue about "tax" with the BBC), thus getting off the subject at hand. My point is precisely this: There are some who think those artists have talent and that their works are art. Am I (or you) qualified to judge "where the talent is"? No. You've admitted as much above. You don't even like art that much, as exemplified by our trip to the Chicago Art Institute. However, were I to approach an art expert at the Art Institute (and I am not going to!), I'm sure I'd learn why.

We all must remember that we're not experts in everything.

Proofreader, I see limericks as light-hearted, but I find nothing wrong with that. So what? They aren't the best form of poetry, at least in my opinion, though they might be in Christopher Strolin's opinion. As I said above, people are different.

quote:

art must take talent to create and must be understandable to a normally educated person without explanation

If you mean by that, that it is understood in the same manner as the "artist" understands it, then very few of the classics of modern art would qualify, and practically none of the standards, but not classics.

If you mean something else, what? Explanation by whom? By the experts, who don't agree with each other?

art must take talent to create and must be understandable to a normally educated person without explanation

If this were a valid criterion for the appreciation of—let alone the definition of—art, then few works of the past 10,000 years would qualify. I am a normally educated person. At university, I got degrees in linguistics and computer science, and not in the arts or humanities. I do enjoy the arts. I consume and enjoy music, theater, movies, poetry, literature, etc. I continue to read about the arts in general. My education is informal and attainable to any who put in a modicum of effort. I was born and raised in rural California, and was the first in my family to go to university.

quote:

If you mean something else, what? Explanation by whom? By the experts, who don't agree with each other?

If you show a normally educated person a picture by Constable, let that person listen to some music by Elgar and to view some sculptures by one of the classical masters, then he or she will know what they are and what they mean. He or she might not like them - but will know what they are without explanation.

Let that same person see, without any prior knowledge, a painting by one of many modern artists, listen to a composition by Cage or Stockhausen and view one of Damien Hirst's pickled animal corpses or Emin's unmade bed and then ask what they are. Without explanation he or she would not have a clue.

Most modern art, regardless of form, makes no sense at all without being explained - and might not even then. I have read Tracey Emin's explanation of her unmade bed and why it's art. I think that what she says is a complete load of cobblers - as is her creation.

quote:

If this were a valid criterion for the appreciation of—let alone the definition of—art, then few works of the past 10,000 years would qualify. I am a normally educated person.

And are you saying that, in spite of your normal education, you are unable to understand most of the artistic creations of the past ten millennia? If not, what are you saying?

quote:

No. You've admitted as much above. You don't even like art that much, as exemplified by our trip to the Chicago Art Institute.

I enjoy many forms of art a great deal - and I enjoyed the trip to the art institute. You mentioned once before that you believed I didn't enjoy it and I don't know why you formed that opinion.

I like great music, fine pictures and good poetry. Whereas we will have our own preferences, it is untrue to suggest that I generally don't like art. I freely admit that I hate much of what passes for art in "Turner Prize" circles, and I have told you all why many times.

RE: If I'm reading you right, then the creations of Stockhausen and Cage and Hirst and Emin don't fit your criteria for art.

If so, that was my point.

Zmj, on the other hand, apparently only understands REALLY old masters.

And are you saying that, in spite of your normal education, you are unable to understand most of the artistic creations of the past ten millennia? If not, what are you saying?

I was saying that your criterion is rubbish as it would exclude most art from the past 10K years. I was also saying that I am a normally educated person and that I enjoy a lot of art which you find not to be art. (But you knew this.)

Zmj, on the other hand, apparently only understands REALLY old masters.

Nope. I enjoy art. I am a consumer of art. And the art I don't enjoy is still art. It's really quite simple, but then I may be a poor communicator. I have enjoyed some of the works of Cage, Stockhausen, Hirst, and even Emins. I have also enjoyed some of the works of Monteverdi, Busoni, Charles Ives, George Antheil, Jacques-Louis David, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and Francis Bacon. What of it? Just because I like an artwork does not make it an artwork, and just because somebody doesn't like an artwork does not make it not an artwork.

I have always particularly like this John Constable painting (link). And this poem:

quote:

The Sky Is Low, The Clouds Are Mean
Emily Dickinson [1830-86]

The sky is low, the clouds are mean,
A travelling flake of snow
Across a barn or through a rut
Debates if it will go.

A narrow wind complains all day
How some one treated him;
Nature, like us, is sometimes caught
Without her diadem.

"My limited and abstracted art is to be found under every hedge, and in every lane, and therefore nobody thinks it worth picking up." [John Constable in a letter to his friend Charles Leslie.]

One of John's descendants, Sasha Constable (link), is an artist, too.

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

quote:

I was saying that your criterion is rubbish as it would exclude most art from the past 10K years.

I don't agree. It might exclude some of the art from the past century - but I don't think you could give "many" examples of older art that is impenetrable to most people without explanation.

but I don't think you could give "many" examples of older art that is impenetrable to most people without explanation.

The works of Chaucer and Shakespeare come to mind. Most religious art of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. Most poetry from the Ancient Near East (e.g., Gilgamesh). Almost any of the Elizabethan or Jacobean poems or prose (e.g. Philip Sydney, Aphra Behn, or John Lyly). The epic poetry of the Greeks and Romans, or any of their plays. I stand by my conclusion that your criteria for art are nearly worthless to any normally educated and cultured individual.

quote:

Most modern art, regardless of form, makes no sense at all without being explained - and might not even then.

If you've ever seen Candid Camera on TV or any of the shows that expose scam "artists", you know that people in general are extremely reluctant to admit they have been tricked. I think many "modern artists" are scammers who push the limits of the genre just to make money. They know even the most educated, sometimes just because they are the most educated, people will not admit they don't understand a piece of art, especially if other, supposedly less intelligent, people are in awe of it. That's why one recent "artist" could put a banana in a gallery window every morning, eat it that night, and replace it the next day, repeating the "exhibition" for pay and call it Art. I eat a banana a day and call it "Medicine."

quote:

You mentioned once before that you believed I didn't enjoy it and I don't know why you formed that opinion.

I'll explain to you privately because it probably wouldn't be fair to me to tell the whole world why I don't think you enjoyed the Art Institute.
Some may agree with your criteria, Richard, and I am sure many won't. I certainly don't. You have every right to your own opinion. You, however, do not have every right to force your own opinion on others.

It is quite clear to me that the members of this forum will never agree upon a definition of art. Yet we can talk about our opinions of good or bad art, poetry or music. But give me, or whomever, the right to enjoy Tracey Emins or Damien Hirst, if I so please (which, by the way, I don't, but that's my personal opinion). That's the point. We all have a wide variation of opinions, and thank God we do! Remember the Stepford Wives?

quote:

I was also saying that I am a normally educated person and that I enjoy a lot of art which you find not to be art.

Ummm...no. You are a well educated person; let's be fair!

Yankee Doodle went to town,
A-Riding on a pony;
He stuck a feather in his hat,
And called it macaroni.

I think many "modern artists" are scammers who push the limits of the genre just to make money.

I've not doubt that some may be, and I'm sure that others hereabouts feel the same way. But it's too large of a leap of faith for me to say that all conceptual art is not art, and that all free verse poets are not poets. I feel that many artists, come to diverse forms of art in various ways. You see a modern work of art and you immediately see a scam foisted on a gullible public. You imply that not only are modern artists scammers, but that people who consume and enjoy their art are either silly or inauthentic. So be it. An argument which accompanies this one is that only talentless poseurs write free verse or do conceptual art. There very well may be, but, hard as it may be to believe, there are artists who have worked in styles more traditional (or ought I to say more valued by you), who have moved on to styles devalued by you. Whenever I hear these particular kinds of argument, I am amused. I am a great fan of a genre of writing dealing with conspiracy theories: secret government agencies, UFOs, what have you. I see this aesthetic as a branch of that.

quote:

Zmj, on the other hand, apparently only understands REALLY old masters.

That was a joke, from the negative inference I drew that you did understand artworks more than 10,000 years old.

That was a joke, from the negative inference I drew that you did understand artworks more than 10,000 years old.

Sorry, my good humor has been worn to a nub. I'll try to read my carefully in the future.

quote:

I've not doubt that some may be, and I'm sure that others hereabouts feel the same way. But it's too large of a leap of faith for me to say that all conceptual art is not art, and that all free verse poets are not poets.

I don't think that even I have said that. And Proofreader said, "...I think many "modern artists" are scammers who push the limits of the genre just to make money...." He didn't say that they all are. And I agree with that as well.

But I think that he and I agree that a substantial number of them are just con. merchants, who are laughing all the way to the bank at the gullibility of those who are scammed into paying obscene amounts of money for total rubbish.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

It is quite clear to me that the members of this forum will never agree upon a definition of art.

I think I'm right when I say that only Bob was brave enough to attempt to define art - and he said, I believe, that "anything an artist believes is art, is art". I have some sympathy with this suggestion but don't agree completely with it, not least because we can never tell what artists actually believe; we can only know what they tell us they believe. And I am sure that some of them are lying in their teeth simply to promote their work.

After all, they're not going to do a "Gerald Ratner" and admit that their work is "complete crap". After all, most people know what happened to him when he was that honest.

I am trying to work on a definition - but it is not an easy job.

quote:

The works of Chaucer and Shakespeare come to mind. Most religious art of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. Most poetry from the Ancient Near East (e.g., Gilgamesh). Almost any of the Elizabethan or Jacobean poems or prose (e.g. Philip Sydney, Aphra Behn, or John Lyly). The epic poetry of the Greeks and Romans, or any of their plays. I stand by my conclusion that your criteria for art are nearly worthless to any normally educated and cultured individual.

Some of the works you cite might be worthless (in the sense that they might not immediately arouse the emotions that they were intended to arouse) and certainly they would not be fully understood by someone who didn't speak the language in which they were written. But translation is not explanation. Chaucer translated into modern English is obvious to most for what it is. Some kind of poetry. Most people would know that all these are art; they would not be impenetrable.

Show a group a piece of Renaissance art and 99% would say "it's a painting". They might not know much more but the work would be understandable for what it is without explanation.

Show a group Tracey Emin's bed and ask them what it is and 99% will say, "It's a dirty unmade bed". Even if Tracey Emin were there herself to explain it, most of the group would still not think it is art.

The more explanation a work of art needs, the poorer it is usually as a work of art. I am not saying, by the way, that a work of art can't be improved by explanation. It is immediately obvious that a Constable is a wonderful painting, but a well-written or presented explanation will enhance most people's enjoyment of the work.

You have suggested over and over again that if something is bad and you don't like it it's not art. That's what I've come to call the rubbish theory of art.

I, too, offered a rather succinct definition of art earlier in one of these labyrinthine arguments. You either don't remember it, or you choose to ignore it, but you did respond to it directly at the time, so I know you read it.

Chaucer translated into modern English is obvious to most for what it is. Some kind of poetry. Most people would know that all these are art; they would not be impenetrable.

I must assume you don't know what you're talking about. I have been in the presence of people reading their works and have heard many say that they cannot understand Chaucer or Shakespeare (in any language).

When most people say they like Shakespeare these days, they mean they are familiar with the basic plots of his plays and that they enjoy them in spite of the footnotes and poetry. (In fact many do not realize that most of Shakespeare's plays are written in verse. They think they're prose works.

Recognition is not explanation. Explanation is not recognition. Repetition is not argument. Argument is not repetition. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
(The last bit's a Star Trek reference. - your ever helpful editor demonstrates the meaning of explanation.)

Are you familiar with Hamlet?
Do you think you understand it?
Track down a copy of the Sherlock Holmes story Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Hamlet by Emanuel E. Garcia and read an extremely cogently argued suggestion that the true hero of the piece is Claudius and that Hamlet along with everyone else is tricked and manipulated by Horatio who, far from being the sole honourable and loyal friend, is a devious Machiavellian spy and a hypocrite of the first order.

Everything can bear alternate explanations. Everything needs explanation. Saying that something cannot be art if it needs explanation is as ludicrous as saying something can't be a meal if it needs salt.

Oh yes I meant to add that James Joyce (currently being discussed in another thread) is to me utterly impenetrable. I have tried and failed to read Joyce on several occasions. It remains, to me, about as transparent and clear as synchronised swimming in a vat of rice pudding.
That doesn't mean there's a failing in Joyce. It means there's a failing in me.

James Joyce

Some of Joyce's poems are rather traditional, e.g., V from Chamber Music (link):

V

Lean out of the window,
    Golden-hair,
I hear you singing
    A merry air.

My book was closed;
    I read no more,
Watching the fire dance
    On the floor.

I have left my book,
    I have left my room
For I heard you singing
    Through the gloom,

Singing and singing
    A merry air,
Lean out of the window,
    Golden-hair.

Now, I always hear Syd Barrett's (link) sad voice crooning his song version of the poem whenever I read it.

And some of Joyce's early prose is beautifully lucid:

quote:

Old Jack raked the cinders together with a piece of cardboard and spread them judiciously over the whitening dome of coals. When the dome was thinly covered his face lapsed into darkness but, as he set himself to fan the fire again, his crouching shadow ascended the opposite wall and his face slowly re-emerged into light. It was an old man's face, very bony and hairy. The moist blue eyes blinked at the fire and the moist mouth fell open at times, munching once or twice mechanically when it closed. When the cinders had caught he laid the piece of cardboard against the wall, sighed and said:
`That's better now, Mr O'Connor.' "Ivy Day in the Committee Room" in The Dubliners (link).

The things that don't need explaining are those that have been explained to you earlier.

quote:

That doesn't mean there's a failing in Joyce. It means there's a failing in me.

Why in you? The quoted Joyce passages are understandable while others of his works defy explanation. It again makes me bring up artists pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go before people catch on to the joke.

The Spectra poems come to mind.

quote:

artists pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go before people catch on to the joke.

That's even more extreme than I thought possible.

quote:

I think I'm right when I say that only Bob was brave enough to attempt to define art

z says he did, and early on in this argument (not in this thread of course) I believe I proffered a definition. It was similar to Bob's, but not as open. However, I'd hardly call it courageous to put forth a definition or criteria or whatever.

I hadn't thought about art being similar to politics and religion, but it apparently is.

quote:

I must assume you don't know what you're talking about. I have been in the presence of people reading their works and have heard many say that they cannot understand Chaucer or Shakespeare (in any language).

I don't see that this statement contradicts anything I have written.

Even if these many people (significantly more than those who can't understand Hirst or Emin, perchance?) can't fully understand Shakespeare or Chaucer without some explanation, they will mostly realise that what they are reading is some form of art. They might not realise that much of Shakespeare is verse but they will know that it is a literary creation of some kind.

Those seeing Hirst's so-called artistic creations without explanation will assume they are something to do with a pathological laboratory and that Emin's are some kind of untidy space. Only those who have learnt that Tracey Emin's bed is supposed to be art, and have been told before they are shown the creation that it is Tracey Emin's work of art, will think it is anything other that a filthy bed - regardless of what she herself calls it.

But most, upon seeing the productions of Hirst or Emin in an art gallery or museum, would think that it is deemed to be art by those in charge. But maybe that placement is equivalent to "having learned".

quote:

quote:
artists pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go before people catch on to the joke.


That's even more extreme than I thought possible.

I didn't realise that the modern art con had been going on for so long. Clearly the sycophants of 2008 haven't changed too much from those of 1916!

I am reminded of the words of David Hannum (usually incorrectly attributed to P. T. Barnum) "There's a sucker born every minute."

Or Lincoln's "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

It's enough to fool some of the people, some of the time, to make a good living as a modern art con merchant.

But of course, there's no more point in arguing with the converted, any more than there would be in arguing about their religious beliefs. Beliefs that are not based on facts (which means beliefs about both art and religion) cannot be dispelled by producing facts and more facts. You could, of course, say that there are more people that believe in your religion than there are believe in my religion - but proves nothing except the prevalence of beliefs. A poll would determine how many people believed that "My Bed" was art and how many thought it was rubbish, but, even if the results were 99% for rubbish and 1% for art that would still not be proof that it is not art since the believers will still maintain that they are right and it is just these poor unfortunate souls that don't share their insight who can't see the truth of their beliefs.

quote:

But most, upon seeing the productions of Hirst or Emin in an art gallery or museum, would think that it is deemed to be art by those in charge.

Of course. That is the way that they, and art profiteers like Charles Saatchi, make their money from the modern art con.

I did post details of the way that Saatchi manipulates the art market to make millions from those fool enough to part with their cash; he bought "My Bed", for £150,000. Within six years, it was valued at £1 million! That didn't make My Bed a work of art - but it did make Charles Saatchi a cool £850,000 in just six years. And yes, I am jealous of the way he makes so much money out of manipulating the modern arts market, even though, as another great American, W. C. Fields, once said "Never give a sucker an even break".

There are plenty of sources for this kind of information, one being here http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_ent...s/article4116649.ece

I wonder just how many times in this and the dozens of previous goes around I have tried to explain that the opposite of art IS NOT rubbish. Equating the two is denying the blatantly obvious truth that there is such a thing as rubbish art.

But I'm wasting my efforts. I'll have terminal RSI before that gets through.

Note for dedicated researchers. Don't bother tryibg to find out how many times I've said it. Beyond the fact that it's "lots" I don't really care any more.

One last point before I sign off on this for the rest of eterntiy. Not only do we seem to have no agreement on what is "art" we seem to have some odd definitions of "explained" floating around. As far as I can tell from your posts what you mean by "needs to have explained" is "needs to be told that it is art". Presumably told by someone who actually thinks it is art.

This seems to me to be just a sophists way of saying "it's art if I think it's art and it's not if I think it's not. If I don't think it is and someone else explains (tells me) that it is art, then they are wrong because wecan't both be right and I am right."

quote:

Equating the two is denying the blatantly obvious truth that there is such a thing as rubbish art.

So if rubbish art isn't rubbish, what is it?

That depends. It could be a messy bed. Not one I'd choose to sleep in, but I'm choosy.

quote:

That depends. It could be a messy bed. Not one I'd choose to sleep in, but I'm choosy.

More choosy than Tracey Emin, it would seem. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-10304932875,00.html

Here lies the body of William Jay.
He died defending his right of way.
He was right -- dead right -- as he sped along,
And he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

And to think that poor sewnmouthsecret merely asked us all if we'd like to share a poem we've written. I suspect by now he'd like to change his name to "sewnmouthshut."

quote:

So if rubbish art isn't rubbish, what is it?

My answer would be that to those who consider it to be "rubbish art" that it is indeed "rubbish." They can toss it in their recycling bins. However, I believe we have established that people have varying opinions on art and what art is, and therefore would have varying opinions on what they'd consider to be "rubbish."

Are there any other poems out there by Wordcrafters? I need to learn a bit more about free verse poetry and will be reading the Linguistics 101 forum on that.
[edited for grammar]

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

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Equating the two is denying the blatantly obvious truth that there is such a thing as rubbish art.

So if rubbish art isn't rubbish, what is it?

Richard, I am a placid, easy-going kind of a guy and I am in extreme danger of losing my temper with you and crossing the good manners line. You are an intelligent, educated and articulate man and you cannot fail to know what utter specious claptrap this remark is.

Let me state this just about as simply as I possible can.

SOMETHING CAN BE BOTH !!!!

You have time after time after time made out that a thing is "art" or a thing is "rubbish". You paint these things as polar opposites. Your world view has never admitted the possibility that something that is rubbish can be art. (And "is rubbish" means, to you, exactly the same as "is considered rubbish by Richard English").

Now, as I point out for gazillionth time that the opposite of art is not rubbish you move the goalposts and ask "So if rubbish art isn't rubbish, what is it?" implicitly accepting that there is such a thing as bad art - a fact that you have consistently denied until now.

If some piece of art is, in your opinion, or even in the opinion of every single person in the world except the artist and his Mom, rubbish that is completely outside the scope of the argument.

IT IS STILL ART !!!!!!!

Just because you consider something to be bad, to be a deliberate con-trick, to be total b******s means zip. IT IS STILL ART.

It could be the worst pile of total rubbish ever put on the planet to torment the Colonel Blimpiest Colonel Blimp ever born of woman. That would mean zip.

IT WOULD STILL BE ART.

Do you get it? The quality of it, or peoples opinion of the quality of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is art and only a little to do with whether or not it is good art.

Here's a thing - I don't like Constable, I find his work to be chocolate-boxish and sentimental; I loathe Betcheman whose work is, to me, twee middle-class crap and mostly mere doggerel to boot; I have a particular dislike of Mozart whose work sounds like jingly-jangle sub-Abba pop music.

I do not go around saying "Constable? That rubbish isn't art. Give me a good Tracey Emin any day." Nor to I shout from the rooftops, "Mozart. Jeez, what a conman, Now John Cage, there's a real composer!" And, though of the three it's the most tempting, I do not yell, "Betcheman! That man should have stuck to writing Birthday card greetings. It's about all he's good for."

Why not? Because I acknowledge that there are other tastes than mine. I acknowledge that being, in my opinion, rubbish, does not preclude the possibility that they are art, music or poetry.
-------------

In retrospect I think I have lost my temper and crossed the line of good manners. I'm halfway tempted to delete this post but I'm going to let it stand.

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

If I were you I shouldn't bother to reply because you will certainly ignore all the central points of this, admitted, rant and shoot of on some unrelated tangent.

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

And now I think I'll go take a cold shower and ponder how much of this post has been down to the utter bitch of a day that I've had.

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


ANd that really is my final word on the subject.

quote:

implicitly accepting that there is such a thing as bad art - a fact that you have consistently denied until now.

Really? When have I ever said there is no such thing as bad art?

To my mind there is good art, bad art and things that pose as art and are not art at all. I have never said that if a thing isn't art it must be rubbish - although I have said many times that much of what is called art is rubbish. Now that might be just my opinion - as it is your opinion that John Betjeman's work is "...twee middle-class crap and mostly mere doggerel to boot..." As it happens I don't agree with that.

You say:

quote:

If some piece of art is, in your opinion, or even in the opinion of every single person in the world except the artist and his Mom, rubbish that is completely outside the scope of the argument.

IT IS STILL ART !!!!!!!

So what makes it art? is it art just because the artist and his mum claim it's art? Or because you think it's art?

Unless and until there is a proper and comprehensive definition of art, with which everyone agrees, whether something is good art, bad art or not art at all can never be more than a personal opinion.

And, as I have said previously, I do not accept that anything an artist claims is art, is art. The artist could simple be doing a Hirst or a Saatchi and simply conning the gullible. Saatchi does not, I am quite sure, believe that the most recent load of rubbish he has bought (and yes, I do think it's rubbish and not art - but you check for yourself) is art. But he does think that it is a fine investment. That is how he makes his cash. He's not interested in art any more than those who deal in copper futures are interested in what can be made with copper.

This thread has got out of hand and has been locked.

If anyone would care to post poetry they've written by all means start a new thread, but no further arguments along the lines of "What is Art?" will be entertained.