Hey Lu, I agree. Like a famous Hollywood producer once said, "If you want to send a message, send a telegram."
I find no quality in Emins' work. It strikes me as a product of "the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered," Al Capp's opinion of modern art. And then there's Tom Wolfe's observation: "Frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can't see a painting." Emin has gobs of theory. Actually, Wolfe's critique of contemporary art can also apply to the question, "What is reality?" Do we need a metaphysics to answer? Not when great art in a fleeting moment lays bare the mystic unity of all. Platt On 2 Aug 2009 at 12:19, Louise Pryor wrote: > I don't get it. Why is that art? I see anger, I see a message, but I don't > see Quality - maybe dynamism, it's certainly not static, but I just don't > get it. I have anger, and could assault you with my depiction of it on > canvas, but when I paint, I try to put out joy, life, vibrance. I don't > claim that my art has a message - it doesn't, except to the people for whom > it is meant. I can appreciate art that I don't necessarily like - but I > guess I just wouldn't call all expression "art". > > Lu Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
