ok, so I hadn't been up too long thenrather than feeling, or reacting, can we say emotional response?
i don't see how a fart in a church is so wildly different to some of recent art, such as Damien Hirst's animals in formaldehyde, or the unmade bed.
Not my cuppa tea, but people that claim to know something about art, claim this to be art
(i don't see how a fart in a church is so wildly different to some of recent art, such as Damien Hirst's animals in formaldehyde, or the unmade bed.
Not my cuppa tea, but people that claim to know something about art, claim this to be art
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 8:29,
archived)
I think in recent historypeople who are not artists have moved to redefine "art" so that they can then become "artists," rather than taking the effort to develop skills. I think a good rule of thumb is that however art is defined, the work must be borne out of a certain level of prowess, and be of more than ordinary significance. Without those requirements, anyone can do anything and call it art, and you might as well toss the label aside as meaningless.
(
LS18,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 9:56,
archived)
i agree whole heartedlyare we saying that something has to have, and i don't want to say it but, an X factor to be classed as art?
( real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 10:39,
archived)