In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"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!


A) the people who can get away with such things tend to be already
established, if you or I did it, nobody would take any notice

If I went along and said look at this fantastic new composition of mine
- it's four and a half minutes silence, do you really think I'd be taken
seriously?

B) why would I do something which I fail to see any artistic merit in ?

--
geoff