Yes, but is it ART?

What does justify itself as 'art'?

Firstly, usual apologies about lack of posting on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesday I found myself out at a meeting all day which prevented me doing any of my usual desk-based things. And then on Wednesday my colleagues were away so I was doing the work of three people.


Anyhow, I was listening to the Saturday Live podcast from the BBC yesterday evening whilst walking home. Every week they have a different guest-poet on who reads some poetry at various slots throughout the show. This week the chap wasn't particularly good. The poems seemed to have neither form nor function, on occasions just seeming as though he had randomly picked words out of the air and thrown them scattered onto a piece of paper.

You could see at times that he had tried to rhyme certain words together into couplets, but a lot of the rest didn't have any rhythm or format and just seemed plain clunky, exaggerated on the occasions when the rhymes were thrown in. Presumably this was some kind of 'quirky' way to poecise; but it just seemed messy and unnecessary. Especially when this device was used in every poem.

And the words didn't do anything either. They didn't tell a story or make you think or hold a debate or describe a mindscape; they left you wondering what they were actually trying to say. It was almost as though the auteur was attempting to show off and establish some sort of precocity purely by using words which would appear educated, intelligent or at the very least outside of the average listener's lexicon. It wasn't big and it wasn't clever.

I am by no means claiming authority over what is and is not poetry. I admit I do enjoy doing creating some of my own and I will also hold my hand up to being a somewhat traditionalist: it should either rhyme; or it should not. Trying to mix the two will simply confuse the listener - they will start looking out for rhymes where they are not and getting frustrated when words jar out of sync. But even poems that don't rhyme should have some form to them - the stanzas should be of similar lengths in terms of syllables; and pauses should be used as a technique - not necessarily to indicate a change of topic or a new sentence, but in a manner which doesn't thump them around unexpectedly.

Everyone got taught A-B-A-B and A-B-C-B rhyming poems at school. If they were the only rhyming styles allowed, poetry would be too prescriptive. Everything would sound the same, it would be boring, poets would not be able to expound upon their creativity. But at what point does something cease being poetry and become plain prose or - worse still - nonsense?

I have had the same thoughts about art too. An artist may attempt to declare his squiggles as art and try selling them for millions, but what if there is very little distinction to that of my young nephew improving his dexterity by doodling on a pad? If I paint a mural on a wall I may describe it as art; but if I simply paint the wall can I claim the same?

Locally we have a contemporary art gallery. Occasionally it has pieces in it which are utterly phenomenal - they have a mysterious beauty that the artist has spent hours and days refining into brilliance. And then there is an egg placed on a candlestick.

I usually think that art has to have one of two elements. It must either look good; or it should be inventive. If it does both, amazing. It doesn't necessarily need any particular skill - Pollock's paintings for example draw the eye, entice for hours and were a world away from anything anyone had done before; and yet they are just paint squiggles. And I'm not counting Pollock's as art purely because they have been accepted as art - they have beauty and they have invention. But does it take artistic invention to put an egg on a candlestick? Does it have beauty? No.

I think sometimes modern artists are desperate to make a name for themselves by being controvertial and presenting things as art that are not and modern art critics are too desperate to make a name for themselves as critics by espousing this as distinctive, unique, art which challenges our perceptions and preconceptions. But it's not - it's just someone trying to call something art which isn't art because they think it will be easier and financially more beneficial than getting a job down at Tesco. It's just plain pretentious. And then they have the audacity to call anyone who challenges it or doesn't accept it as art as being a neanderthal, not embracing creativity or experimentation.

Perhaps therefore the art-snub should define what art is, rather than the art-snob. At least they seem to know what they do and don't like.