Is ART, ART any more?
The answer is simple, art is not art any more. Too many people think it’s okay to re-label something so that it fits into another category. A piece of art has to showcase some sort of originality and craftsmanship. I'm sorry if this read annoys people, but quite simply farting on a piece of paper and calling it art, does not make it art. It makes it a piece of paper that someone has farted on.
What gives that piece of paper the same rights, the same labels as great masters of art such as Picasso or Matisse? This is the argument we should be making. Not an argument that art can be anything. So far, contemporary art historians have devalued the label of art and allowed pieces to be valued at incredible amounts. This is not okay.
Art has a function. It is something that can promote an emotive response, yet can simply just be a beautiful piece of work. If this is the case then why do artists think, it’s okay to ‘shit’ in 100 cans and allow this to be marketed as a piece of art. I’m not going to credit the piece by posting the name, it’s simply not art.
This begs the question, are any contemporary pieces of art actually art? Tracey Emin, effectively displayed her bed in the Tate gallery. Yes her bed. Not to forget this bed was not a clean freshly bought ikea bed, it was her bed, featuring used condoms, menstrual stains and alcohol. Apparently, this is art because it has been conceptualised to be considered art. I may be rigid in my idea of art but this is going too far. I appreciate art movements and understand if art was just about Constable, Turner and Friedrich, the art world would be pretty boring.
Art should include movements and effectively grow to include new pieces such as those that are inspired by popular culture. You know who I am talking about… the Warhol’s, Lichtenstein and Hammonds. Though, when are we just being stupid? Duchamp managed to place a urinal in a gallery and conceptualise it as art. Since when has a toilet been considered art? It doesn't matter how much you dress the idea up, to fit into the bracket of art. People still ‘pissed’ in that.
This is why the public are dis-engaged with art. They think you have to be pretentious and find loop-holes in thinking about art.
Even walking into a gallery, you’re confronted by snotty thirty year old’s pushing press releases at you and explaining art work in the most deluded way. ‘This is a piece by someone with a double-barrelled name (of course) and he/she, has managed to capture the idea of light shining into light, something so un-natural yet magestic…’ If there was a BRIT award for the biggest twat, forming a sentence about nothing-ness, it would deservedly go to a curator/exhibit informer. A dog makes more sense barking at the moon.
Why can’t art just be art? A drawing completed to a great standard, something that depicts reality with a twist. This is not to say it has to look like what you’re looking at. Why not play around with the colour palette and make it representative rather than realistic.
Keep it original without discrediting art as a whole.
Otherwise, soon we will be able to wee on the side-street and call it art. That kind of behaviour doesn't deserve the label of art. It deserves an A.S.B.O.
If I have annoyed any of you pretentious art goers, feel free to post a lovely witty response back. If you find my idea of art even slightly engaging, have a look at my flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93817447@N03/
