OK so it seems many people have an opinion on artworks or artists
based on what they see in the news or the few "controversial" pieces they see, i.e sharks in formaldehyde or tents with the names of people they have slept with or even glasses of water that are actually trees.

And its terribly unfair to have an opinion on any of these artwork or people without A. Knowing about art, B. Knowing what the artist was trying to convey and C. Knowing about all the artists other works.

Therefore I take back my reaction that the iconic conceptual artwork "The Oak Tree" is pretentious and my thoughts that Michael Craig-Martin is a pretentious twat.

Uninteresting fact, the "Oak Tree" in the Tate isn't the original artwork but an artists copy, meaning he filled an identical glass with water and stuck it on a shelf.
( Peej, Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:05, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

apparently it isn't acceptable to think someone is a fucking twat
based on the interviews you have seen and read with them, where they come across as a fucking twat.

who would've thought?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:56, Reply)