Yes, what is art? And is there a specific, irrefutable answer?

The question – what is art? – is one I found even more perplexing after watching a TV programme recently called ‘Who’s Afraid of Conceptual Art?’

A more apt name for the programme, in my opinion, would have been ‘WTF is Conceptual Art Anyway?’

The only way I can explain that kind of art, it is by highlighting artist Martin Creed’s puzzling piece.

It was probably a very expensive piece but you can’t actually pick it up, move it or touch it.

There is no tangible object involved, so naturally, it won the Turner Prize in 2001.

Have we all heard of British artist Martin Creed?

He is the guy who painted, sculpted, made, built, er….. oh, I know! Thought up the idea of having an empty room where the light goes on and off at 5 second intervals.

Or was it off and on? Can’t remember.

This work, was actually purchased, it is entitled ‘Work Number 227, The Lights Going On and Off’.

There you go, it is on and off as opposed to off and on, was.

It was purchased by Tate Members, the Art Fund and a named individual who must have money to burn.

The details are laid out on the Tate website. You can get to that page on the Tate website by clicking here.

It was also ‘on show’ at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in Manhattan in 2007.

That left me wondering if the MOMA had to buy their own version of the work.

Or did they borrowed the one that the Tate Members clubbed together to buy in London?

Either way, what did the MOMA either buy or borrow? Yes, I know, it blows my mind too, trying to figure it out.

Did the group of people who bought this work ask the question, ‘what is art?’ before parting with their cash?

Or more to the point, what is this art? Why do I ask?

Well, in the Tate listing, where it says, ‘medium’, it says ‘Gallery Lighting’. 🤷‍♀️

What it should say there, in my opinion, is ‘there is no ‘medium as it’s just a concept. Yes that’s right, some people spent an absolute fortune on a f*%k*%g concept.’

Where the summary was – I would reword that too, just to make it a little clearer.

It should say, IMHO – ‘A load of pretentious bollocks designed to get plenty of press attention’ for the Turner Prize. See? Much shorter and more to the point don’t you think?

This is the kind of ‘art’ made for people who ’see’ clothes on naked emperors. If you don’t know about that story, where have you been? Click here to become enlightened about the kind of people who ‘see’ clothes on naked tyrants.

And as I said, in the gallery blurb, where it says ‘Medium’, it says ‘gallery lighting’.

Not ‘oils’ or ‘watercolours’ etc. Turner would surely turn in his grave!

Let’s get this straight. Tate Members bought a piece of ‘art’ that is basically lights, owned by the the Tate, going on and off. Right?

And, it cost so much that a group of you had to pool your money to get this…this…this concept that uses, as its medium, the Tate’s own room, lights and electricity. Yes?

Oh my. I don’t know what to say.

So, I ask again – What is art?

Well clearly absolutely flipping anything, if you can get the right people to buy it and bang on about what uneducated peasants the rest of us are.

This is the kind of thing they say about stuff that needs explaining because it’s so shit. This is a line from New York art dealer Jim Kempner’s comedy series, The Madness of Art:

“What does this mean? Do you know what post modern means? This is post modern, fatalistic, idiosyncratic, post apocalyptic malaise. Alien glitter, ironic oatmeal existentialism. There’s a psychological phallus. The point is, that it’s important.”

Jim Kempner is the funniest art dealer I have ever come across. His series of skits in the Madness of Art are so honest.

I first found Jim Kempner when he did a Ted Talk called the Madness of Art. He had me as soon as he came on stage and asked “any questions?” before he even started his talk.

I love this guy – despite being respected New York art dealer, he sees the humorous side of that world. I can’t imagine any upper-class British dealers having this kind of humour.

In the BBC programme mentioned at start of this post, we learnt about the Italian artist Piero Manzoni.

Basically, to put it bluntly, he canned his own shit.

Yes, really. Why would I make that up?

He died back in the 60s. The cans are worth a fortune, selling for prices as high as £182,500 at auction.

No one really knows what is inside the sealed cans (there were 90 of them).

And here is the genius part – to open one to find out would render it worthless!

That, apparently, is also conceptual ‘art’.

Ok! Moving on to one of Martin Creed’s more tangible pieces of ‘art’.

Work No 88 An A4 Sheet of Paper Crumpled Into a Ball.

The journalist in the BBC programme bought one. It cost him £180. No, that isn’t a typing error – it really was £180.

Ok, so we know that a screwed up blank sheet of A4 paper by a living artist goes for a heck of a lot less than canned shit (or not) from a dead one.

We also know that there are some crazy Mo Fo’s out there buying stuff you can easily make at home.

What do you mean, a screwed up ball of paper is too hard? I made one – look.

It even comes with images of how I made it – look…

Ok – so for you people who did not go to art school and need it spelt out – you start with a blank sheet of paper.

Now this is the tricky part – you need to screw it up. If it doesn’t look very much like a ball, just keep screwing and eventually, you will get one as good as mine. Ok?

So back to the question, what is art? Is it what you see above? Is it that easy?

Clearly for Martin Creed, it is. However, I doubt anyone will pay me £1 for my screwed-up paper ball, never mind £70 or, the £180 that Mr. Creed gets.

And apparently, his is a perfect sphere. Mine isn’t. That is why I love it.

It may not be perfect but as paper balls go, I believe mine is just as good as Martin Creed’s and it only costs £70 – that’s less than half price.

While canning your own shit might be a harder piece of ‘art’ to emulate, the turning the light on and off one should be a doddle. Come on! What could be easier?

Just not sure about how you would sell something like that.

Sell what? I hear you say. Well, exactly. That is the nature of conceptual art.

The question –  What is art? – came up again the day after seeing the BBC programme that made me question what art is.

During my working day, I encountered the image you see below.

I won’t say who created it. Let’s just say it wasn’t what I was expecting when looking on his website.

Having seen the ‘art’ programme the night before, I immediately fell in love with this very real image.

I am sure I wasn’t meant I too.

Why? Because I don’t think the artist expected anyone to connect with the image, although I may of course be wrong.

Whatever his intention, I did connect with it in a very positive way. It screamed – FREEDOM! – to me for some reason.

A breaking the mold kind of freedom.

My still raw feelings about the utter madness (expensive utter madness) I had seen the night before, coupled with being confronted by this image, caused me to once again ask the question –  what is art?

So the creator of this image, who lives in Nashville, very kindly agreed to let me use his artwork for a small project, the results of which I am going to share with you in my next post.

Meanwhile, I ask you these questions:-

Would you pay £180 for a screwed up ball of paper or would you make your own?

Would it depend on who screwed it up?

What is art to you?

If you enjoyed this, you might like to know more about my channel. and what I do when I’m not questioning the art world. 😍