Tuesday, 29 November 2011

isn't it funny how if somebody painted a red square on a canvas one day, no one would care. but if somebody spent years pondering the psychological associations of red and/or squares and then painstakingly produced a red square on a canvas, it's likely they would be taken seriously as an avant-garde artist. people always point this out and poke fun at artists like this, like tracey emin with her unmade bed, but I can't decide whether I agree with them or not. maybe art is the difference between the two processes. maybe art isn't about what you produce, it's about how you get there. or maybe it's all just pretentious drivel. I don't know...


  1. That's a nice thought. I guess it's hard to define art, or cultural heritage. I like to compare it with music.

  2. There are many theories as to what makes something art. I'm at Winchester school of art and am currently writing an essay on what makes an object art, search for the institutional theory. Also more recently, the meaning theory. x