On 27 Oct 2013, at 14:07, knarf <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sadly I couldn't listen to the Grayson Perry lecture on my android as a bbc > app that is not available here is required. Did manage to listen to a > truncated version on Youtube and what I heard/saw was quite interesting.
It's worth reading the transcripts, which you'll find on the same site. He's basically talking about the institutional theory of art. The main criticism of that theory is that it doesn't give any clues as to what criteria the art world has for deciding whether something is in or out. There are 2 more lectures to appear. > > As you may know I struggle greatly with the concept of art/artist. Hearing > him say (if I understood him) that a small cadre of intellectuals > (pseudo-intellectuals?) control the definition of art, decide what is/isn't > art and obfuscate the whole mish-mash with purposefully impenetrable language > kind of confirms what I've suspected all along. > > But as I said, maybe I missed his point. Not at all - that's the institutional theory. > > As I've said before it's gotten to the point that (to paraphrase a US > senator's definition of pornogrpahy), "I can't define art but I know it when > I see it." > > I get to define or decide if something's art ~for me~ but so does everyone > else. > One of the interesting questions for me is, why do people care? Calling something art, whether it's good or bad, carries with it some notion of value, but the object or performance or whatever is not changed. One of the points that GP makes is that most of what we see today as new art is dross, and nobody should be embarrassed to say so. By and large the good stuff survives, and the dross from bygone ages is forgotten. Most of what we see in galleries today will be forgotten. Occasionally forgotten greats are rediscovered, such as Vermeer, but most of the stuff that sinks into obscurity does so deservedly. > Anyway, sounds like you gents must have had a wonderful day and a very > interesting discussion afterwards (while sharpening the daggers to plunge > into the hearts of us Pentaxians). Seriously, lovely cameras and I still lust > for X100. I hope you get one sometime - you'd enjoy it. > > I thoroughly enjoyed your photos with wry comments. As mentioned in another > post, it's a real boost to realize that since I'm a photographer of black and > white bicycle photos I must be an artist! Thanks. Bicycles are a good shape. I bought a cheap second-hand one, which happens to be black and white, today to tide me over until my Roberts is repaired. B > > :O > > Cheers > frank > > > Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I decided to apply my critical faculties to the pictures I took >> yesterday, >> most of which are here, with accompanying pensées de l'artiste: >> http://www.web-options.com/ArtQ/ >> >> Chris referred me to this year's Reith Lectures given by Grayson Perry, >> so I >> read the transcripts when I got home. I urge you to do likewise, they >> are >> very interesting: >> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
