"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time, rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage,
where the "performer" opens the lid of the piano keyboard, sits for several
minutes in silence and then closes the lid again and takes his bow. Is there
really any talent in that? What do you think when you see all the people
applauding? Are they really experts, or are they brainless Lemmings following a
fashionable trend? It's the same with avant garde modern art. You can guess
what I think.

Peter