Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Hirst among equals

10:42 / 19.10.01

This is interesting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm

... would seem to differ from that case last year where (I think) Tracey Emin objected to someone else moving and reassembling one of her works 'because they weren't an artist'.

DBC

13:53 / 19.10.01

From the article:
"A spokesperson for the gallery said... ...that the cleaner's efforts could have a positive outcome, by encouraging "debate about what is art and what isn't, which is always healthy"."

NNNhggggg! Is it? We've had at least a century of largely pointless umming and ahhing over the same f***ing not-very-interesting question, is it really healthy to carry on? I thought we had the answer already, and that answer was "whatever you bloody well please" (a good thing, btw). True or not, the actual answer is completely bloody irrelevant. If there were any danger of some sort of government body being put in charge of what is and isn't art then it might be worth worrying about, but as it is, whatever anyone says, people will continue to make, buy and sell whatever they bloody well please anyway.

I'm sure it's healthy for the curator's, mind, because as long as we're thinking about what is art, we're not questioning the quality of what's in their galleries.

AND the whole thing is double irrelevant now that I've given the world the concept of eyenice...

[ 19-10-2001: Message edited by: Saveloy ]

Ronald Thomas Clontle

17:50 / 19.10.01

quote:Originally posted by Saveloy:

NNNhggggg! Is it? We've had at least a century of largely pointless umming and ahhing over the same f***ing not-very-interesting question, is it really healthy to carry on?...because as long as we're thinking about what is art, we're not questioning the quality of what's in their galleries.

Thank you, thank you so very much for having said that. I think the question and answer of 'what is art' was answered very well quickly after it was first brought to the fore in the fifties and sixties, Duchamp, Buoys, and Warhol in particular certainly covered nearly all of the bases. I think that what yr implying is correct: in the past three decades, that question/answer has been mercilessly co-opted by a great many dealers and artists as a marketing tool to sell art objects to people and gimmick themselves into institutions, and use the tendencies of hack critics to their own economic advantage. I have always been very suspicious of any contemporary artist from the past thirty years who plays this game...