I don’t ‘do’ art. Never have, never will.
Art’s an odd thing – and I’m not going to talk about the Tate or Tracey Emin either. Whenever the subject of ‘art’ is covered on the news, they always seem to drag that Brian Sewell out of whichever cupboard he lives in, and just his voice grates on me. Why is that a picture just can’t be a picture ? Why do they have to heap deep meanings onto some image ? Why do they only ever do this for dead artists ? (Answer – so the artist cannot tell them they are spouting junk, that’s why) Why do they say that unless someone appreciates the full meaning behind an image, or a sculpture then the experience is just being wasted on them ? Why do they have to be all elitist about some paint and some canvas ?
Surely, if you like, you like, and whatever meaning the artist put in becomes secondary to you. This image is part of ‘Opium’ by Damien Hirst, and I have not a clue why he did it, what he was thinking, what his goals were, how well he thought it did it’s job, or any other meaning he may have attached. All I know is this is one image I love. I would buy a full size repro. The image does things for me. I like it. But then some would say that it’s wasted because I care not for the original intent nor even intend to discover and understand it – but that’s crap isn’t it ?
I can almost understand the prices things sell for, but only because it’s the very rich who play this game, but do they get the meanings and understand the motivations ? Or do they prevaricate about it ? Does their money and status give them some automatic ‘in’ to this surreal world of ‘Art’ ?
Is it actually all just upper class hot air ?