sketchbook cover400x560

Fine Art 01

I've always had some problems with this description of a certain type of creative practice. It is at one and the same time exclusive and excluding.

The classic definition runs something like this: 'Visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness'. Post-modern discourse has taken that conception of praxis to pieces. The trouble with this is people keep putting back together a cracked mirror to create more 'fine' art. It's a dead end...

The Artist

Personally I don't think there is any such thing. It was pointed out by both Wittgenstein (Investigations) and Duchamp (readymades) that in most cases, meaning is use (for Duchamp the act of pointing determines utility). The main reason we have art in white boxes is because the historical foundations of 'Western' art are rooted in the provision of 'excess' wealth by both the church during the early renaissance period, and the emergent merchant classes in Holland in the 15th century, for the production of aesthetic validations of power. The prime factor that determines what kind of art and by whom it is created is wealth. Western art practice is bound hand and foot to capital. As the environment breaks down the notion of 'fine art' and 'the artist' will become redundant - that's where things become interesting. It's my starting point...