Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 22 Aug 2014 23:58:34 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at David_McNickle Sid 22, I've seen your Lib Dem site. Not exactly a work of art. Thu 15 Oct 2009 10:33:46 GMT+1 David_McNickle Sid 22, Very nice. I'm reporting you to Cleggy for using rough language. Thu 15 Oct 2009 09:51:02 GMT+1 Sid I always figure that if you could do it, it's probably phart. Thu 15 Oct 2009 09:07:52 GMT+1 David_McNickle I always figure that if I could do it, it ain't art. Thu 15 Oct 2009 08:51:01 GMT+1 Big Sister JW (18) You are, of course, quite right in that respect - but I suppose we could also say this of, for example, scientific invention. However, I suppose in the case I cite, the 'author' of the idea is likely to keep reaping some reward for their idea (provided, of course, it was patented by them, and there have, as we know, been notable exceptions). Wed 14 Oct 2009 19:09:16 GMT+1 needsanewnickname I wonder, though, if this doesn't raise the issue of plagiarism? Or at least muddy the waters around it a bit. Wed 14 Oct 2009 17:31:18 GMT+1 Joe Walker Regarding Attenborough's remark, it's probably truer with art than with most other things. If good art is an idea made into an object, then no matter how hard the owner tries or how much they pay, they cannot own the idea once it is in the public domain. This goes to the root of cultural development in societies in that what moves society on is ideas and the association of ideas. If art does nothing else, it does this. How particular works might appear as an object to individual tastes is irrelevant. Wed 14 Oct 2009 17:24:17 GMT+1 Joe Walker The difference between good art and (say) a sofa from D.F.S. costing perhaps the same amount is that with good art, there is an idea. With really great art there is an original idea and some of the best of those original ideas challenge many assumptions that we make about everyday life, many of which some people seem to waste vast amounts of time defending against intellectual attack (I think this has something to do with Marx's 'false consciousness).Anyone who thinks good art is pretty pictures that match the curtains really needs to try harder.Nicholas Serotta described Damian Hirst's "For the Love of God" as "the first masterpiece of the 21st Century". Based on the above, this is likely to be true. Good art is not just 'a matter of opinion'. This is a post-modern anti-intellectual idea which belongs in the same dustbin as the claim that all opinions are equally valid. It should be obvious that they are not. Wed 14 Oct 2009 16:42:21 GMT+1 needsanewnickname Re: Bayeux Tapestry: Well observed, Helena. And isn't that piece (work of art, wotevva) by Grayson Perry a tapestry? He's moved on to doing them.Someone's being clever! Wed 14 Oct 2009 16:37:48 GMT+1 Lady_Sue Agree with Helena and Big Sis. Preston: *tee hee* Wed 14 Oct 2009 16:03:31 GMT+1 David_McNickle BS 10, You sound like a man... Wed 14 Oct 2009 16:02:27 GMT+1 U14138029 Sue (9) - That's no way to refer to an old lady! Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:53:03 GMT+1 David_McNickle He is an artist like Hirst, Tracy Emin, Chris Ofili, Antony Gormley, Rachel Whiteread, the Chapman brothers, and other con artists. Some people here do Glass Boxes that are just as good, and free. Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:39:09 GMT+1 David_McNickle Grayson Perry: Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:33:35 GMT+1 Big Sister " belongs to no-one, some of us are simply its temporary, fortunate custodians"The same principle applies to many things in life, including the listed buildings, the land, and the world in general. It's something that we all need to remember. Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:31:04 GMT+1 Lady_Sue Nice bag. Wed 14 Oct 2009 15:07:40 GMT+1 Looternite Call that art why *I/my kids/my pet monkey* could have done that.*delete where appropiate* Wed 14 Oct 2009 13:09:17 GMT+1 Poverty Over the recent decades I have been wondering why art (including poetry) seems to be used mainly as a vehicle for the expression of miserable, rude or puerile emotions. There seems to be nothing much around that displays real talent. Amateurs seem to be much better in this, these days. Wed 14 Oct 2009 13:01:47 GMT+1 GiulioNapolitani Fyfe Robertson used to say 'phart' (phoney art).Ah! I stand corrected. That will be why it doesn't show up in a web search, then. Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:55:52 GMT+1 Sid Fyfe Robertson used to say 'phart' (phoney art). Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:53:54 GMT+1 U14138029 Helena-Handbasket - Yep! Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:52:10 GMT+1 GiulioNapolitani Art, or fart? As Fyfe Robertson liked to say. Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:51:46 GMT+1 Helena-Handbasket I've been trying to think of a suave segue into Damien Hirst's new exhibition, but have given up.Hirst reminds me of the two swindlers in the Hans Anderson fairytale 'The Emperor's New Clothes', and the only way he pushes the boundaries is by seeing how much dross he can produce and still con people into calling it art. Dead animals, sliced dead animals, spots painted by other people - it's all lapped up (to the tune of £111 million in the 2008 auction of his 'work' at Sotheby's last year). His new stunt - I mean exhibition - of paint daubs looks like a very poor and repetitive GCSE project.What has he ever produced that is of aesthetic value? Seriously. /rantIn an attempt to crowbar this post back on topic: October 14th - Battle of Hastings - Bayeux Tapestry - Art. Wed 14 Oct 2009 12:48:09 GMT+1 GiulioNapolitani 'In all truth, art belongs to no-one, some of us are simply its temporary, fortunate custodians'.Are we referring to art the concept, or art objects? In the latter case, of course it can be owned, in the sense of an individual exercising control over the object. For example, if I acquire an art object and then destroy it... Wed 14 Oct 2009 11:48:15 GMT+1