RE: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Richard Marr <Richard.Marr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Hmmm ... Is it not also possible that Tracy Emin's 
> > work really has no value, and those who pretend to 
> > believe it does are just pretentious twits ?

> iit certainly has some kind of value even if negative. 
> I could say, "isnt it possible that Hawking's work has 
> no value, and those who pretend to learn from it are 
> just pretentious twits?" would that be as valid a 
> declaration? :) 

As I'm sure you all know, since most of you were once 
children, and 50p pocket money was a lot when you were 
seven, that the value of something depends on your 
perspective.

The value of Emin's work in my eyes in negligible, since 
more response is evoked by walking past a parked car 
where some woman is giving some guy a blowjob, or buying 
a kebab from a turkish guy who says "chillisaucesalad?". 
On the other hand Hawking's work is also valueless since
that does nothing for me either.

Lots of people benefit from both Emin's and Hawking's 
work. Even if it's only the people who have Brief 
History on their coffee table to show off to Tarquin
from the flat upstairs, or the people who go mincing
round galleries trying to act as if they're some kind
of connoiseur of the human condition just because they
once saw a film in french and have a token friend that 
didn't go to public school.

Art, that being something that has value beyond what you 
can eat or fuck, and value being subjective, is therefore 
entirely subjective as well. 

Since subjectivity and objectivity are opposed, an object 
cannot be Art. It is your perception of it that is Art.

The Mona Lisa is not Art, The Metamorphosis of Narcissus
is not Art, the Venus de Milo is not Art... unless YOU 
think they are.


Rich