Have people gone mad?

@LoobyDoop2 that sculpture of the vestal virgin is so beautiful. Apparently it’s had to be roped off so people can’t get too close as everyone was touching the veil as they couldn’t believe it was marble and not fabric.

It’s a very old fashioned and unsophisticated view, but when you compare a pile of bricks, or a banana stuck to the wall, with something like this

https://www.chatsworth.org/visit-chatsworth/chatsworth-estate/art-archives/devonshire-collections/sculpture/a-veiled-vestal-virgin/

I find it very difficult to see how the banana and bricks can be called “art”. I mean, someone was skilled enough to make stone look like diaphanous silk. You can look at that and marvel. What’s to marvel at in the bloody banana, other than the profligacy of the idiot who paid for it? That’s not art.

UPDATE: The man who bought the work has eaten the banana. Here he is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj051glrr9o

The world truly has gone bananas.

I've got two granny smiths here and I'm making my debut as an artist with my first piece, titled 'How do you like those apples?', available to the highest bidder.

This is something that fascinates me. Who decides what is 'art' and what isn't?

I’ve often wondered that and I asked an art dealer who said “the market decides”. But who decides what the market is going to decide?

My husband said the same thing

That's exactly what i thought when my colleague shared this story on our team chat.
I was going to tell them and then realised they are all so much younger than me they probably wouldn't know what I was on about!

@MrsSkylerWhite It could be said that the answer to people who say "I could've done that" is "but you didn't..."

Seriously though I think its money laundering. It seems the most likely explanation.

Hilarious. Fools and their money are easily parted.
Well done to the “artist”. Wish I’d had the “concept” 😁

Art is subjective.

Because sadly when my kids were 5 we didn't have a handy in to a leading London gallery...

Many years ago a chap round here sold 'abstract art' of brightly coloured splashes of paint that made tracks across the paper. Lots of commentary about the skilful use of colour, pattern, texture, the significance of the spacing, blah blah blah.

It eventually turned out that he had a pet duck. He'd dip its feet in paint and send it out onto the paper. When it wandered off the paper, he'd rinse its feet and try another colour. When the artwork looked about right, Ducky was back in the run and the painting was hung up to dry...

It's a tax dodge.

I hope the banana farmer got paid handsomely

I think part of the appeal of this kind of art is the reaction that people have to it. Everyone on this thread has an opinion which has fed into the debate.

And to everyone that says, my 5 year old could do better than that, why are you not already living off the proceeds of their artworks?

I have heard many a rumour of expensive "art" being a cover for trafficked children....

I'm not crazy about bananas but would you accept £2.80 for a pear?

They'll have to replace the tape at some point too, it'll lose it's adhesiveness if they keep peeling it back to replace the banana.

I think this is taking it a step further than “rubbish art”. This man has paid millions for a random banana and some duct tape. He has to “assemble” the art himself on his own wall. The artist hasn’t made this art. It’s not the same banana and tape that was originally displayed. It’s interesting but I just can’t consider it any other than ridiculous.

An interesting question OP. Because who decides where the boundary between spending ones excess wealth on what one chooses and madness/disgusting waste/immorality while others go without lies? And who decides what art has merit and what doesnt on what criteria? I mean, I personally think its disgusting that people can pay £5000 for a handbag while others can't have the heating on. I also think that Bridget Riley must have seen them coming. Many would disagree on both counts. So I guess its two bigger questions. Is it disgusting to have loads of surplus wealth? And should there be set criteria for assessing the merit of art?

If its stuck to the wall.......does he get the wall too?

Is he to eat the banana or watch it go off like mine in the fruit bowl

Will he get free fruit flies with this?

Will it attract monkeys and other marsupials?

Yes......the world has gone mad

I honestly think - don't waste your time and energy trying to define what art is. Art is whatever an artist (that's anyone who considers themselves and artist) deliberately makes. It's the quality of the art which is worth debating, and whatever anyone thinks - only time will really sort the gold from the dross.

I agree with you about most stuff that's produced today. I just don't think it's worth getting into an argument about whether it's art or not. It will be forgotten or in a skip before very long!

just going to say this, people have no idea about what people give to charity. These countries also have governments. I assume that op gives every spare penny to charity.

This is something that fascinates me. Who decides what is 'art' and what isn't?

I know a lot of it is about the 'story' that goes with the work but what if someone produces this sort of thing for their degree and the people marking the work disagree that it's 'art' and gives them a low mark? How do you objectively assess such a piece?

I go to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park a lot and some of the exhibits there genuinely are something that anyone could do, for example:

https://ysp.org.uk/art-outdoors/123454321

Is that the work of a talented artist or a couple of competent bricklayers?

I'm minded to get DP, who can drive telehandlers etc, to drive in a stack of tractor tyres under cover of darkness to display somewhere in the park with a story about how they're a representation of the problems of waste management and also a nod to historical thefts of their sculptures.

Is it art or is it fly tipping? It could be an entry for the Turner Prize.