New vocabulary..for Art..Revolution


In the comments on the above video (Damien Hirst) I found something like this:

….”This piece of shit is a talentless sociopath that belongs more in Broadmore than he does in an art gallery. This is how low European culture has sunk where the merit is in how much you can spin a web of bullshit and intimidate your way into the art world which is full of weak kneed sycophants that are afraid to criticise anything, than have any actual talent.”

And this:

“To all the people judging the art and saying it’s “shit” – you make the assumption that you know what is “not shit” – in which case, why aren’t you making “not shit” art and raking in all of the rewards? Just curious, since you seem to ‘know’?”


“if any of his work was put in a natural history museum, people would walk by and say “ooh, sharks and cows sure are interesting.” But he puts it in a snooty modern art gallery and everyone says “oh what a profound conceptual genius he is! Lets appraise this for millions of dollars!”

And also:

…”Kinda unrelated, but kinda not at the same time-The fact that art critics (and the concept of critiquing art in general) exist is ridiculous enough idea on it’s own. Whether art is “art” is completely subjective. Whether art is good, great, or shit is completely subjective. There is no right or wrong in art. Critiquing it for the masses and telling others whether they should like it or not completely defeats the purpose of it’s existence. Art is an intensely personal medium-that’s the point of it. By telling someone that they’ve done something wrong with it, that their art is shit-you’re essentially”…


t’s his art, and it had an audience, and that audience wanted it, and they had money. But, I think the litmus test is that, if you take all that stuff away, would this artist keep making the same stuff? In Damien’s case, I think he probably would. He would just be doing it in poverty. (So no diamond skulls, cigarette butts, yeah sure] That, I can respect. It’s a fools errand being an artist really. The overwhelming likelihood is that you’ll die poor, alone, unrecognised and forgotten by everyone. It’s not like being a mechanic, a clerk, or a telco engineer. [which I have been, to eat.] So one would only continue to do it if it’s what you’re naturally driven to do. An irrational need to make something useless. Nobody would choose that. It’s like a mental illness. Except in the cases when it turns good, like it did for him. [and even then, it can still go wrong. Basquiat et al.]

And finally :

…”funny how we think we know what art it is, Picasso? warhol? Rembrandt? duchamp? banksy? What is considered art for everyone is what have you been told is art… if the rich people pays 100 millions for Picasso must be art then…. I personally think art should transmit, and give you emotions.”..

And N.B.

…:”A drunk wanking on the street is art. Everything is art if you look at it with an artistic view point. I believe this is the point of his work. Many people view art in a very small category with all sorts of restrictions but art has no barriers. A butterfly is an insect but wouldn’t you also consider it art? I can understand people being upset with his work because of the fact that much of it used to be living, but if I died and then was later used as art I would be quite flattered.”…

So what is Art ?!…. Nobody knows……………..I need a new vocabulary…………framing all the above comments into a new point of view…. a la “””””Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution++++++…….


….from uncertainty to certainty…..