Artwatch, part somethingorother of lots

[mirrorshard]

Tomoko Takahashi's installation, My Play-station, at the Serpentine Gallery, consisted of, well, random Stuff. Household objects salvaged from skips. Now it's been demolished, with members of the public coming to take the Stuff away.

But the Serpentine staff were worried some might profit from it. So, all the collectors left with a flyer.

"Please note that these objects are not works of art - they are gifts from the artist to you and souvenirs from her commission," it read.

I think that's a rather dubious assertion - surely the point of the whole exercise is art? Art found, art assembled, art viewed, art interacted with, art taken away and enjoyed. I'm reluctant, very reluctant, to say that even the curator of a major art gallery gets to say definitively that a given object, especially one touched by an artist, is Not Art.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1456592,00.html?gusrc=rss

Comments

[wallsy.livejournal.com]

I think it's quite simple. It's not art, and it never was.

Just because something was made by an "artist" does not mean it is art. I know that that definitiuon is accepted by art galleries, but it's wrong. If I painted a square of one colour over a larger square of another colour, noone would care, noone would be at all interested. If an "artist" does it, it's suddenly fantastic?

No, it's not, but an art gallery will tell you that it is.

Click here (http://scene.aciddreamfactory.com/viewtopic.php?t=2069) for a discussion on it with my views in more depth.