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

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
"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.

Well, I know that many people say that they could do the same - or that
their three year old or whtever could. But they don't!

But like sPoNiX said, if I was to "compose" a piece of silent music, nobody
would take any notice. John Cage was well known for writing avant garde music
from the early 40's, at least 10 years before he wrote 4'33". I haven't had the
chance to design any avant garde buildings, but I have been trying to dabble
with weird sounds, but nobody has shown any interest. That's because my work is
not fashionable.

It's too easy for anyone to call another a brainless lemming. It could be
said that the ones who propound their (not very eloquent) opinions on this
ng are brainless lemmings - I'm not saying it. I don't say that of anyone. I
do know that I respect the opinion of those who know more about a subject
than I do and I haven't seen much of that round here when it comes to art.

I didn't call anyone a brainless lemming. I asked whether you felt that people
who follow fashion for the sake of it, like the King's courtiers who praised him
for going naked, could be described as such. As far as knowledge of art is
concerned I could be called brainless, but I'm certainly not a lemming.

You might be surprised to see the art which decorates my walls and ceilings
and garden ...

Maybe, but I don't know you well so I have no preconceptions about your taste in
art. Mary, I am not decrying your taste or anyone else's - I merely pointed out
that fashions and trends play a large part in what is classed as "good" and
"bad" art, and free thinkers form their own opinions.

Did you see Dairmuid the gardener on TV last night, building his display for
Chelsea? He had some really weird ideas I thought, but some aspects of it were
clever, and I would have praised him for those. What I didn't like was the
people who gushed with fake praise about the whole thing, not because they
really liked it, but because that's what they thought would enhance their own
personalities. They are the modern King's courtiers in my view, as are many
avant garde art and music fanciers.

Peter