^ This is almost certainly the nub of the argument
One's reaction to a work of art will always be entirely subjective. The biggest difference between "classic" and modern art is, it seems, the executional skill involved. Whether or not you are moved by Michaelangelo's David, or the Piéta, etc, you've only got to look at them to admit that some guy put a metric fuckload of effort and study into those pieces to make them what they are. Conversely, Emin's bed did not require a great deal of ostensible effort. This is not to say it's "bad" or "not art." I don't care for it myself, but I can see that some people do; the difference is that it doesn't have the defence of having been a challenging undertaking.

It's the same line of reasoning as comparing Bach's Brandenburg Concertos with John Peel's favourite record, Teenage Kicks by The Undertones: you might not like either of them, but you can't deny that the Bach demonstrates a lot more thought, effort and musical understanding than a sloppy three-chord punk song. Question is: whilst an abundance of executional skill is a good defence to fall back on, does a lack of demonstrable executional skill make it bad*? Are you dismissing it for the wrong reasons?



*_{Well, in the case of Teenage Kicks, it's the fact that it's a shit song that makes it bad. For the life of me, I really cannot see what somebody who listened to as much music as Peel saw in that pathetic whiny cunt Sharkie and his shite band of shitehawks.}
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:00, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Oi!
*loves the Undertones*
( girlinthehole, Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:09, Reply)