It appears to be a rant.
Philosophers can disagree about conclusions reached from assumptions made but no matter how ill conceived an argument might be people don't say "the ideas are bad so therefore he is not a philosopher" value judgements are present but poorly constructed philosophy is still philosophy. A mathematical formula without a proof is still maths. A sentence with a spelling mistake is still english. A pop song is still music no matter how grating and exploitative.
Art however is different. Good art and bad art are divided into groupings that undermine the existence of most art altogether. Poorly executed art is not "bad art" it's "not art".
The vague area between worthy creativity and mere doodle is as wide as a canyon & into it goes all the unwanted artistic landfill. Judged and found lacking it becomes something unworthy of consideration. Even in the rare air of what is accepted by the inteligencia disagreement is rife as to what value is placed on the art we are allowed to respect. Art (I think) is unique in this respect and I'm curious as to why this is, curious as to why we accept it.
It seems that you can take "not art" creativity (Campbels soup can) and present it in a new medium and make it art. A bed is not art, yet Emin says it is and thousands agree. A urinal is not art and yet Duchamp made one so. You can make art from another's creativity - the art is in the intention not the design. Can you then take already existing art and make new art from it? Better art from poorer?
Apparently so. The most mysterious of all the creative processes was demonstrated this summer when "Massacre of the Innocents" was reappraised by experts and was apparently suddenly by Rubens. One day a Hoeckes "worth" $250 thousand - now a $76 million Rubens. Sotheby's declared the painting had been "lost" for hundreds of years. "For such a work of genius by such a great painter to languish under a false attribution to a minor artist for so long is surely an injustice."
The paint has not changed, the theme is the same, the woman about to be run through by the roman soldier has held the same pose since the 17th century, but thanks to the alchemical magic of the experts it is now a masterpiece.
Art is a sham, a placebo, snake oil. Sometimes when I go into a gallery I feel as if I am in a neglected zoo looking at trapped animals slowly dying. I think the time has come to make some sort of decision. For me at least the debate about art is over. It's all art, no exceptions. Honesty and intent are the only currency I accept, art is no longer good or bad - welcome to the new brotherhood of Dada where the most worthy art is lost art and we have a different understanding of the word "injustice" than the fucking loathsome bourgeoisie at Sotheby's.
Art however is different. Good art and bad art are divided into groupings that undermine the existence of most art altogether. Poorly executed art is not "bad art" it's "not art".
The vague area between worthy creativity and mere doodle is as wide as a canyon & into it goes all the unwanted artistic landfill. Judged and found lacking it becomes something unworthy of consideration. Even in the rare air of what is accepted by the inteligencia disagreement is rife as to what value is placed on the art we are allowed to respect. Art (I think) is unique in this respect and I'm curious as to why this is, curious as to why we accept it.
It seems that you can take "not art" creativity (Campbels soup can) and present it in a new medium and make it art. A bed is not art, yet Emin says it is and thousands agree. A urinal is not art and yet Duchamp made one so. You can make art from another's creativity - the art is in the intention not the design. Can you then take already existing art and make new art from it? Better art from poorer?
Apparently so. The most mysterious of all the creative processes was demonstrated this summer when "Massacre of the Innocents" was reappraised by experts and was apparently suddenly by Rubens. One day a Hoeckes "worth" $250 thousand - now a $76 million Rubens. Sotheby's declared the painting had been "lost" for hundreds of years. "For such a work of genius by such a great painter to languish under a false attribution to a minor artist for so long is surely an injustice."
The paint has not changed, the theme is the same, the woman about to be run through by the roman soldier has held the same pose since the 17th century, but thanks to the alchemical magic of the experts it is now a masterpiece.
Art is a sham, a placebo, snake oil. Sometimes when I go into a gallery I feel as if I am in a neglected zoo looking at trapped animals slowly dying. I think the time has come to make some sort of decision. For me at least the debate about art is over. It's all art, no exceptions. Honesty and intent are the only currency I accept, art is no longer good or bad - welcome to the new brotherhood of Dada where the most worthy art is lost art and we have a different understanding of the word "injustice" than the fucking loathsome bourgeoisie at Sotheby's.