Beauty
in the beholder's eye
comparable to
Concept Art
in the beholder's mind
(where music lies -
and if not there, then it's a fig).
Ergo:
The Beatles
and Sex Pistols
have been of greater influence
more relevance
than - shall I say? - Picasso or his ilk.
Thoughts meander like a
restless wind inside a letter box
and if I say this ice cube is a sycamore...
if I convince you -
in your mind, that is -
That's concept art -
in the beholder's mind
is where it's at.
Forget the artefact, the magic isn't there.
While my guitar gently weeps
seemed more relevant
than Pablo's Old Guitarist
Within you, without you says it all for me.
Don't show me works of art.
Most people could make most of them.
I don't believe in genius,
don't need to. I believe
in freedom. I am not
top notch at drawing... Ergo:
I don't draw.
If not the best,
then find another way.
Is this a found poem? I don't know. The thoughts came largely from A Sky interview in the "In Confidence" series. The opinions are almost entirely those of Damien Hurst, but they are not direct quotes.
7 comments:
I think some modern works of art only become so after the artist has been interviewed about his/her 'inspiration' - but then I'm just a philistine!
tricky to compare a painting with a poem/music of different eras?
what happens if you compare a picasso guitar with a modern visual artwork.
and the weeping guitar with an older poem?
the programme" the ten most expensive paintings in the world"...just about said the same...but not of course so well! love it!
All art is worthy its just the way its interpreted by people :-).
jabblog
One definition of a philistine is someone irritated by the jawbone of an ass. Thanks for your response.
lucychili
I agree, such comparisons are impossible.
Gerry
I've recorded it, but not yet watched it. You kind of make it sound it's not up to much! Thanks for the compliment.
Windsmoke
I'll have a think about that, but my instinct is to agree with you.
I like the poem – especially the use of colour (a nice touch in a poem on art) – although I’m not sure I agree with all the thoughts contained therein. The one that gets me the most is the idea that only the best should do x, y or z. I get what he’s saying (or at least what I think he means to say) but what if you’re not the best at anything, does that mean you don’t get to do art? It’s like a point I was making about composers recently. Who can think of any contemporaries of Beethoven? Are you telling me that he was the only bloke in the world writing decent music back then? I’ve listened to Cherubini and Hummel and there’s nothing wrong with their stuff. Okay it’s not Beethoven-brilliant but what do you do when you’ve listened to all the Beethoven there is?
If Damien Hurst can convince people that a shark preserved in formaldehyde is art, does that make it so? Hmmm? Interesting thoughts on interesting thoughts.
Post a Comment