Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
- Edit My Images
But then it wouldn't be art would it, isn't the very essence of art that it is ephemeral? There is nothing wrong with fashion and trends, there is no science behind why someone buys a Rolex rather than a Casio, the Rolex is about how it makes them feel and its the same for "art", people buy it because of how it makes them feel. Some of that feeling comes from the work itself, some from the status it conveys, some from the idea of an association with the artist.Art would be a lot easier if there was some kind of metric that could be used. To an extent I agree with Andrew F, that the art world doesn't really have a way of measuring a piece to see if it qualifies, and there have been notable pieces of 'art' in the past that have been rejected, only to then be accepted because of the creator rather than the piece (Fountain springs immediately to mind). I'm much more inclined to believe that a piece is art because of the person who created it than the piece itself, the actual form playing only a secondary role.
It's perhaps more approachable to think about fashion, the top designers produce extravagant cat-walk pieces to make a splash but their main commercial work is more wearable. If all anyone wanted was to stay warm the sequin would never have been invented.