Head on out to your local sporting goods store and buy a basketball. Hold the ball in front of you. Is it art?
I don't think it is either. But now put it on a marble pedestal. Is it art yet?
Can't convince me it is. Although some folks might at that point call it "art".
OK. Now take three basketballs and put them in an aquarium half-filled with water. Is it art?
If you're Jeff Koons, the
I have three words for this:
I can't for the life of me figure out what's more laughable; Thinking this is a viable piece of art, or actually spending money to own it? (Full disclosure: If someone wants to hand me a boat load of money for a painting, I would not turn them away!)
Now, if you want one of these masterpieces, you can buy one at auction. One went for $244,000.00. A steal! Or... You could go to WalMart, buy three basketballs and an aquarium and make it yourself, and no one would be the wiser... You're welcome.
I can't help it. I've tried to be open minded. Really. I've forced myself to never say out loud what I think constitutes art because who the hell am I to say? Have I ever created a masterpiece? Have there been books published about my paintings? Do I sell for millions of dollars? No. No. And No. But I have an opinion. And at the risk of offending anyone, this is my definition as to what constitutes talent and art.
First-- One of the paintings below was done by a chimp, the other by a human.
Rule one: If a chimp or any animal that can grab a brush can duplicate a humans effort-- It's not art.
Rule two: (And this one is touchy, I admit) If what comes out on canvas is the result of pure chance based on no preconceived thought-- You know, paint splatters, hitting colored golf balls onto a canvas, etc., it doesn't show talent. It is not art.
Simple really. And it still leaves a whole wide range of what I would call art.
Oh, last rule--
If you're name is Jeff Koons.
It ain't art.