You're right. I was more describing myself in that instance. I wish I were an artist, but I'm so lazy it's painful. But yeah, I should give everyone the benefit of the doubt, because more often than not they simply have priorities.

You're right that artists not working in paint tend to be fairly heavily stigmatised because of their rejection of a 'traditional' medium. More generally though, I think that the sad fact is that most artists, regardless of whether they're painters, sculptors, conceptualists, whatever, simply aren't all that good at it. I mean, in terms of living artists, there are a vast number that are enormously successful but it's doubtful that many of them will go on to be recognised as being anything particularly special in years to come. Gerhard Richter and Bruce Nauman maybe, but not many others. My point is that anyone can be trained to become an artist, just as anyone can be trained to become a guitarist. And with dedication and the right training, they can probably be quite successful at it, at least on a commercial level. I just don't think you can equip someone with an insight into what they're doing that will enable them to transcend their training and dedication. You can give them stuff and they can absorb it, but what they ultimately end up doing with it is something else altogether.

Damien Hirst is an entertainer. Tracey Emin is still a teenager.

Tracey Emin is an entertaining teenager. Damien Hirst entertains teenagers.

Haha that's brilliant! Absolutely perfect, spot on!

Ah I can't rep you for it.

I would say most 'art' today is actually entertainment based on this definition of mine: art has to either attempt to be beautiful or attempt to express something (this can be anything, a feeling, an idea, a political opinion etc however complex or simple) or attempt to do both these things at once. A piece of art can also attempt to be ugly/repulsive but only in the occasion when something is being 'said' in it otherwise there is no reason for it - why put yourself through suffering by looking at something ugly that has no aim behind it? Someone like Damien Hirst doesn't do any of these things so he isn't an artist; his 'art' is there as a diversion for the masses; it is an opportunity for the masses for self-congratulatory pseudo-musing. He clearly plucks any random thing that pops into his mind and then gets other people to make it.

EDIT - Failing at an attempt ie creating something shit but still attempting to be beautiful still counts as art as does trying to express something but failing to get it across. It doesn't count as good art though.

Had I known that, I wouldn't have bothered!

Either way. I can't help noticing that Roberts is raising the bar quite considerably at the moment:

Wow that's a really nice picture, she looks lovely. Don't worry, I'll rep you for it in the future.

Dude shes the most ugly one!

But really talented.


Ha ha.

At first I wasn't actually convinced that it was her so I checked a group picture and, indeed it is.



In terms of Damien Hirst, I tend to think he's someone who has done some great stuff but that his reputation has become almost terminally stained by his media profile. People just don't seem to trust the bugger. In that sense he sort of reminds me of Gordon Ramsey: someone else who seems to have become more famous as a parody of themselves, rather than for what they actually do quite well.

PHILISTINE!

I pretty much only have a negative view of him.

I don't think I could possibly claim that Damien Hirst is not an artist. I don't like his stuff, nor do I find it interesting or expressive, but if I can't call him an artist then what is he? I believe that an artist is anyone who claims to create art, but in exchange for such a broad definition, I'm quick to say that an artist is a talentless hack.

I stumbled upon a Valerie Solanas-themed house party once and some chick was seriously advocating resurrecting her to execute Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons.

Sign me up, i'm sure i could come up with a list as long as your arm of further candidates once koons and hirst have been despatched with

No the point is to do these thing because you enjoy them not because you're on a quest for glory. There is not set path for creating art but to suggest that everyone is equally capable is naive at best.

What's the connection to communism?

I think what you're saying betrays either that you are uncomfortable with being more capable at some things than other people, or that you are too much of a big head to be able to accept that there are other people who will always be better at certain things than you are, no matter how hard you try, and judging by your responses i'd say it's more likely to be the latter.