In message , Peter Taylor
writes
"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,
I was going to mention that, but forgot his name and was too lazy to
google it. Thanks, you've put me out of my misery.

Of course, the question which has never been answered is, what key is it
in?

Do you realise that at it's first performance, several sad people burst
into tears because they got so emotional ?
--
geoff