>>>>>>>>I guess definition of art is as wide as that hole Romo ran through, but I'll give it a shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is from todays installment of Tuesday Morning Quarterback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...because now "artist" rather make a political (or social or regligious) statement with their art than make art.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As opposed to the art, music, literature of bygone eras which had no political, social, or religious content whatsoever????????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course there were. geeezzz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it is my opinion that there seems to be more of the hateful and derogatory art. To me art should be uplifting and inspiring.
>>>>>
>>>>>With all due respect, you may misunderstand art. However defined (paintings, music, writing, architecture, etc.), art has a long and illustrious history of provocation. It sticks a needle in delicate places and presses hard. That's the point. Not all art provokes but it sure isn't out of character. I actually find it uplifting that we aren't all sentenced to dull lives with an inevitable conclusion. It's nice when things outside my normal realm make me think. I do not mean anything offensive about that; as an immigrant you know more than I ever will about being outside one's normal realm. But we do disagree about the meaning and value of art.
>>>>
>>>>You're right I'm no expert.
>>>>IMHO there's provocation and then there is milicious hateful act. I think there is a difference.
>>>>
>>>>If a person drew a NAZI swastika with derogatory message about jewish people, would that be art? How about the cross in urine, aka Piss Christ? I guess as long as it offends only the Christians and Jews it's ok.
>>>>
>>>>Like I said I recognize that art comes in many forms in wide range of definition, but I believe it has gotten to a point where the line between art and junk is getting very thing. The definition of art has cheapened and deluted.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah I know, personal taste is a big part of art.
>>>>
>>>>Anyways that's my opinion.... so there.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for the explanation. I still think you're overstating it but you have given me something to think about. Which IMO is what online forums should be all about.
>>
>>I remember many years ago there was a small gallery in Birmingham (UK) with an expo called "Green on Green". Now this didn't necessarily take a great deal of artistic talent to create: it was merely a HUGE collection of green things: from bottles to tents, from astro-turf to apples, of every different hue, all just lying around on the floor.
>>
>>I thinks THAT was when I got it. Although, like I said, it didn't take much draughtmanship or whatever, it was the artist who'd had the IDEA - not I. All I could do is envy him for his originality and creativity. I, with my own artistic taelnt (I was at art college at the time) hadn't had the idea to do that. And the overall effect of the exhibit was rather stunning.
>>
>>Now you take Damien Hirst and his sawn-in-half cow, in a tank of formaldehyde, et al, and you may think, "That didn't take much talent, and he had to have it frozen and a butcher probably did the sawing for him", but the fact is that, despite his being a complete wanker, only HE had the idea to do it, and for that he has my respect (I'd still love to brick him if I saw him in the flesh :-)
>
>So is there no limit to what is 'art' then? Merely doing something that nobody did before makes that thing art? In fact I have to narrow that a bit - doing something that nobody did before in that same context makes it art?
>
>I was at the Art Gallery here one day and there was an entire room (probably about 6 or 7 metres square) reserved for one piece of 'art'. In the centre of the room was a ring of ordinary bricks on their sides. Now I've seen similar things at garden shows etc, but this was in an art gallery - therefore it is art? I beg to differ.

Well, the eye of the beholder comes into it and if some gobs**te likes it or is prepared to pay that's a different matter. I didn't mean just cos someone thought of it it's good. There was an equally big kerfuffle some years ago about a white canvas taking the Turner Prize, and all the newspapers had photos of this scandalous white canvas. But what they couldn't show was that close up you can see the inconsistencies in many layers of paint, some transluscent, with texture, etc. Not to say thet I defend it but, again, he had the idea to do that which no-one else had. Now, equally some "Old masters" can be attractive to some but not to others. Lucian Freud, for instance, billed as the UK's greatest living painter: I can't stand his work and think it's a load of "Eartha". See here his execrable portrait of the Queen. I'll bet she winces every time she sees it. Look at the asymetry of the two sides of teh face (eg distance from eye to side of head):

http://painting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=painting&cdn=hobbies&tm=19&gps=53_322_1100_722&f=00&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1720000/images/_1723071_queen_freud300.jpg

As for your Red Stipe painting. Were there any Jamaicans on the judging panel? :-)
Maybe it was chosen as it subliminally complements your national flag?


>
>Art isn't art just because somebody thought of doing something I hadn't thought of doing. There has to be more to it. A quality of vision perhaps - something to make me think beyond they way I usually think, or at least something sensorially meaningful.
>
>The Royal Art Gallery in Ottawa paid $3 million for a painting of a red stripe. The canvas was about 3 metres high by about a metre wide, and it had a broad red stripe painted from top to bottom. I have to admit that I'd not seen this before. I've seen other sorts of stripes painted on canvas, but not a single red one from top to bottom. Sorry, that doesn't make it 'art' for me. I see more as a scam being played based on the insecurities of 'art experts'.
>
>After this was unveiled, a guy (a farmer, I think), painted his own red stripe and was trying to hawk it from the side of the highway at the bargain price of only $2 million. The directors of the gallery tried to have him legally shut down because they said he was mocking them. I wonder what gave them their first clue.