Michael Landy

(not the piece from the RA Summer Exhibition,
but pretty similar)


katherine. said...

even I could do that kind of art!

Dave said...

Most of what passes for art these days is not what I'd call art.

KAZ said...

I remember a TV programme about Michael Landy. He destroyed every single thing he owned as a work of Art.
Not everyone approved.
I'm sure Dave wouldn't have liked it!

I, Like The View said...

and I quote. . .

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

"The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

"Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as 'a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science'. Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."

(you can tell it's a quote, because of all that punctuation. . .)

the label here does indeed say "art for the day" - but whether art is art is another debate entirely

*sits back smiling*


Mel said...


*sits back to watch*

<-- knows sick'em about 'art' but does like a good 'debate'

mig said...

It certainly lacks frills. I think that's all I can say about it. Oh except that it does seem to do what it says on the box. Even though there's no box - which is a good thing in today's climate of anxiety about the seas of rubbish swirling around our doorsteps.
So you could say it's quite contemporary and topical. And it appears to have provoked a little thought.
Maybe it's time we had some galleries devoted to stuff which could be called "not exactly art but sharing some of the characteristics of that what we usually describe as Art" Something catchy and modern like that?