|
I would say most 'art' today is actually entertainment based on this definition of mine: art has to either attempt to be beautiful or attempt to express something (this can be anything, a feeling, an idea, a political opinion etc however complex or simple) or attempt to do both these things at once. A piece of art can also attempt to be ugly/repulsive but only in the occasion when something is being 'said' in it otherwise there is no reason for it - why put yourself through suffering by looking at something ugly that has no aim behind it? Someone like Damien Hirst doesn't do any of these things so he isn't an artist; his 'art' is there as a diversion for the masses; it is an opportunity for the masses for self-congratulatory pseudo-musing. He clearly plucks any random thing that pops into his mind and then gets other people to make it.
EDIT - Failing at an attempt ie creating something shit but still attempting to be beautiful still counts as art as does trying to express something but failing to get it across. It doesn't count as good art though.
|