What's "art" and what's not?
Personally I decide for myself, but I am well aware that this is only my personal opinion and since I am not an acclaimed arts critic or anything, what I say doesn't really account for anything.
Just a few minutes ago I stumbled across this site: Art Work by Coke Wisdom O'Neal. As creative as I find the idea of taking shots (I suppose well arranged) of the contents of medicine cabinets and/or mirror cabinets - I really like this idea - likewise amazed am I by the blurred shots - what looks like bad pictures of a tv screen - and the amount the artist is asking for them.
I don't know any of his artwork, but I am extremely sure I am NOT willing to pay that amount of money for a picture that personally doesn't tell me anything or rings anything inside me. Only because it carries his name, even if all his other work is fantastic.
Likewise I have never been a Beuys or Warhol Fan, some of their art work I really liked because it moved something inside me, made me think, but the majority of their art work really wasn't "for me". So I have always been curious what makes "art" "art". Who decides and what exactly makes them an expert. And is art really art because somebody says so, or are there any objective measurements.
Me, I go by my own taste and I don't care. And I am still suprised somebody would actually be willing to buy a blurred picture for $850 or $1,000. But then again: beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. So why not.
I share your opinion. Images of somebody's medicine cabinet for nearly $2k? Or images without any focus? Ouch.
Maybe we all should start selling photos?
icerabbit
PS: You have a very nice blog. Thanks for the comments on my blog & the dress. C & I really liked that.
Posted by: icerabbit | August 11, 2004 at 12:33 AM