You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Anyone see that thing with Noel Fielding? What a fascinating piece of TV.
Repeating now on C4+1 now.
good wasn't it..
I watched it - I'm not an arty person but enjoyed the programme.
just turned it on.
I'm interested but not a fan, I don't really consider him an artist, I think.
I'm of the same opinion as you on that Al.. but I think I'm slowly coming round to the idea that he [i]may[/i] be..
Did they do anything similar on Freud? Worth a hundred Hirsts IMO.
Neither in this programme are coming across as Big Hitter, or even heavyweight art intellectuals.
"I thought...how can I ever paint anything this real?"
"Well...a painting's reall innit?"
**** sake, I missed the first hour of Firefox for that?
Neither in this programme are coming across as Big Hitter, or even heavyweight art intellectuals.
thank ****..
Not a fan of Hurst at all so didn't bother watching it. I guess I should have though, you know for a different perspective and all that.
How can you doubt that an artist is an artist?
I'd rather be in agreement with Noel Fielding than Brian Sewell, that is for damn sure!!
I can, because I think I can.
Sewell RAWKS.
when is an oak tree not an oak tree Dezmond..? When it's a glass of water of course
I agree.
When am I not who I am? When someone (or nobody) thinks they know what I am better than I do.
Top marks for pedantry and missing the point there!
what I didn't know until this evening is that Michael Craig-Martin was one of Hirst's lecturers at Goldsmiths and a key player in the birth of the whole YBA movement..
[img] 
[/img]
An Oak Tree (1973), consisting of an ordinary glass of water on an equally plain shelf, with a text by Craig-Martin that asserts the superiority of the artist’s intention over the object itself is now recognized as a turning point in the development of conceptual art; very different remarks from its original views which were surprise and sometimes scorn.
[img] 
?pictureId=12997617[/img]
I think that his earlier work is valid as art with a concept, the later stuff I think is probably artistic collectibles rather than art per se
and yes he is an artist - the usual argument of 'I could do that' is responded by 'well you didn't did you' and also 'ok do it over and over again with a distinctive style and narrative through the pieces'
I'm not saying I could do it, and I guess it is art, mostly shit art though.
I'd say there is equal amounts of good art and sh itart around, but of course that's just my opinion