Cornelia Parker

Artists are becoming more and more determined to provide art for the masses rather than for the critics. There is a war going on between the two forces and the general public is caught in the middle. Do we applaud the bravery of new movements that dismiss the snobbery of establishments, or do we scoff in their faces and make a mockery of what they call 'art'?

But we must pity these poor critics that have to bear with the constant challenge they are faced every time an exhibition opens. There is no longer anything that cannot be classified as art and therefore, something - preferably deep and meaningful - must be written. It was once their job to comment on the technical skill of the artist and praise their use of a medium to achieve their means. Unless they wanted to write about how excellent the solution preserving Damien Hirst's shark is, there is very little to comment on in that area. Instead, they simply have to tune into the artists work and understand what it is saying - despite the apparent determination of artists to be as ambigious as possible.

I am finding it rather difficult to write a page on Cornelia Parker's Thirty Pieces of Silver. There is plenty to discuss in terms of possible meaning and allusions, but I don't to sound too presumptious. I don't want to write some philosophical analysis...

Is it more difficult being an art critic or an artist?

Emin

I mentioned quite briefly in my previous post how much I dislike Tracey Emin as an artist - I can't judge on anything else since I don't know her personally (although she reveals a fair bit through her work). There is one point I would like to raise in defense of her however: she can draw. Clearly, she spent her childhood making doodles of all she could see and this is apparent in some of her earlier works - particularly her sketches of birds.



Could C Y Twombly draw to begin with? What leads an artist to treasure scrawls and scribbles across a dirty canvas? Where on earth did their inspiration come from? Both Twombly and Emin attract mixed views about the value of their work and although I am no fan, as an artist myself, I too sense a spark of intrigue when I create scribbles. Of course, I would never attempt to declare it a finished work of art worthy of a space in a prestigious gallery, but it is an expression of our internal being and therefore as valuable to some extent as any of my more polished paintings.



This may be where the answer lies: I consider anything I do as signisficant - to myself. But art has a purpose that must sometimes go beyond the artist. It is not merely a self-indulgent exercise but meant to express the human condition and therefore appeal to the wider audience. I can't communicate what I want through a few scrawls or smudges. If people can honestly relate to Emin's work, then fine: it serves a purpose. But a student going away and creating a piece that is supposedly 'Eminesque' and therefore an acceptable work of art, better think twice.

Nothing

I should have started with a clear idea of what I intend to write about - but I have varied interests and don't consider one more important than the other. I think it would be better to list the sorts of things that you will never find me writing about: business, indepth politics or science beyond the abstract level.

There is a russian artist by the name of Malyavin that I would recommend you look up; as far as I know, his work is grossly underrated and deserves far more attention than some of the works on show today. I would rather have one sketch by him hang in the Tate Modern than a thousand installations by Tracey Emin.

The irony is that her success is due to the art critic's love of promoting whatever goes against the public opinion. I would be very interested to know how many people admire her work; not academically, but as a creative piece of art.

There will be a revolution in art - and the same goes for almost all sectors and hidden corners of society.