Hmm…All these labels nobody really bother to define.
What does the word ‘art’ mean? If it is another word for ‘collectable’, ‘blue chip’ then surely Grayson’s products fits the bill to perfection?
If ‘art’ is to do with representing inner visions or reality seen through the prism of an individual mind, then maybe other words need to be invented to describe what is going on?
My issue with the word ‘art’ – the concept of the word ‘art’ – is that both mass media and the public seem by that blanket definition to expect a product that is not only comfortably individual – unique but not too unique – but also commercially a good investment. And this expectation changes according to time/culture/space. Still the word remain the same. Art. We are meant to all agree to what it is by osmosis, perhaps. The word wasn’t even in use in it’s current form before 1888. Yet, Rembrandt was such a great ‘artist, wasn’t he? Hmm.
Is it even relevant to use that word when talking about old masters?
I know art dealers do. Bankers do. But really, is it honest to pretend that our culture’s overriding obsession with money, hierarchy and wealth should be a true indication as to the true value of someone’s vision and observations?
I hate museeums – I cannot visit these institutions where guards and bars protect what should be freely available to all humanity.
My problem with Jonathan Jones’s article is that while I totally agree with his conclusion, I still feel he is being dishonest as to his own role in this sorry mess.
I am sorry I cannot make the article visible on this page – you’ll have to click through to read Jonathan Jones’s piece in the Guardian.