Art?

[year_x]

Boab referenced this article and it enraged him because the central idea is that Damien Hirst creates 'art', and Banksy doesn't. My feelings on what is 'art' are fairly well trodden in my mind, as it's something I return to often. However, I'm not sure if I've ever put it out there in it's pure form. I'm normally allying it to my thoughts about

Comments

[year_x]

Style as in some quality other than the communication which I can't at the moment put my finger on

The temporary art can have the same impact whilst it is being experienced. Although Obviously repeated experiences of more permanent art would give repeated enjoyment. But I can't see it as a mathematical equation

The argument that art can only give the viewer what is inside them, as opposed to exactly what the artist want to communicate is a complex issue that has impact on a wide variety of subjects. I think it must be the intention of the piece, rather than the result. As the intention is ever present, where as how it is received differs. I don;t really know on that score though. What do you think?

'growing self-referential' would be better expressed as 'increasingly self referential'. Though like any claims about the changing nature of things, it is likely that it is our own myopia, rather than any trend

It is necessarily our own private view of the artists own private thoughts/emotions/experiences. It would be nice to think that the best art is that which expresses things so universal that no knowledge of the artist is needed, merely that we share similar biological organs. Though I'm maye being too hopeful there. I do however think communication is possible. In fact I think it is very common. But because we are so word-centric, it is never spoken about, because by it's very nature there is not way to describe the extra 'messages' that art gives us over and above the obvious/blatant ones.

The "isn't it silly" message is present in most of the pieces held up by the public as 'not-art'. Those ones which look like they are taking the piss. I think a lot of modern art carries a commentary on what art is. It isn't a condition for art that it is self-referencing. But that does seem to happen a lot. It is one of the messages being given out. I don't know if one 'piece' can comment directly on itself exclusively. It's a loser definition of 'message' than that. I don't think it's a matter of discovery. I think you tune into it or you don't. And I don't mean that in an elitest way at all.

All messages we get from art are essentially filtered through our brains and experiences and views. However, I'm often of the opinion that everything we see is a reflection of what is in our heads. I think our views are the art. We see what we already know to be true, but good art gives us more bones to define them with.