Yes, something like that. It ought to have a subversive (revelatory) function - to break through the crust of cultural pre-conditioning, to be called art. Over time we might become accustomed to it, and its subversive value may thus become diluted, but can still be recognised.
No, you don't even attain the state of forger, since you never put your bed on public display. Tracey did it first and so claimed that territory. There's no room left for your bed in the world of art. And don' t you think, even if you've only seen it in photographs (!), that there was a brutally honest narrative quality to it? Art takes many forms.... an unmade bed is art if someone says it is (if it is i'm a forger every morning)
I like your 's' on the end of 'regard' , Bill - it puts me in mind of a deep Somerset or Norfolk accent. Sorry, I'm not taking the p*** - I think your heart's in the right place. But nature isn't art - nature is life! Art is a human construct. I think from your comments that your cultural education has been lacking.
Likewise, the opposite is true: Artists should not be so fast to dismiss work that is not art. I like visually impressive imagery as much as the next person. That's because such imagery has a universal appeal, but only because it requires no thought, and doesn't need to viewer to commit to any deeper analysis. It's easier to look at.
So in a way, I can relate to Eno's words there. Stop treating the image as an object in itself.. for it's formal qualities alone.
At risk of repeating myself, art has nothing do with whether you "like" it It doesn't mean you can't "like" something that's art... it's just not necessary. However, to appreciate an image for it's formal qualities ALONE... you HAVE to like it usually, because the aesthetic appeal is all there is.
Eno's music is a great example of this. The album Music for Airports... not something you'd listen to CASUALLY.. it demands your full attention. You really have to work at it a bit, but it rewards you if you do.. but anyone not willing to put the effort in, will listen to the first 30 seconds and just say "This is sh1t" and put Radio 1 on..... assuming it's daytime, as night time Radio 1 can be pretty cool
I grant that you're an artist on your own terms, but if you 'except' the modes of payment stated, how can we pay you? And shouldn't this be in the 'classifieds'?
Names, numbers and considered reasons might be welcome to back up a stance such as that. An even better idea could be to accentuate the positive and talk about what product of art you can actually endorse. Otherwise you're discussing nothing, really, in this context. When you say that nature's art I suspect that you're idealising its more decorative aspects? Is that true?
That might be good viewing for BillN_33, not to mention Perry's Reith lectures which were both incisively and amusingly critical of the bulls***e prevalent in the 'art world' ...
I have sympathy with this position actually. For me, art has to stop my internal dialogue - literally stop the world - to be considered great art. I love wandering around galleries and appreciating the time, energy and skill displayed, but the truly great art inspires me to be more, feel more alive and expands consciousness.
I have sympathy with both sides of the discussion, Bill. I've stated above what I want from art.
That's your opinion, Bill. It only has reality in your head and seems to be the primary reason that the detractors don't like what is being said. You've taken offense and seem to be defending a perceived attack.
Seriously? You're bringing that up? Perhaps you would be best just leaving the discussion, Bill.
Not me. This is a tv free house, but I'll check it out on 4Od.
I'm a little unsure how you can claim to know what true artists do when you don't appear to understand art at all.
That'll be Godwin's Law at work.
Yeah, I know. I try not to bite, but sometimes...
).