That is what I thought. But they were signed and numbered. At 495 pounds each, I could probably do that.Yes, Zen, it seems really unclear, doesn't it? The way it's worded. But it seems to me like he's slapped on a new cover. The cover says 1984, but when you open the book and read it, it's really the Da Vinci Code. That's the only thing I can come up with after reading the article and knowing Shrigley. The reason it's so much money is because of the special signed print inside (which he claimed was an "original work," but he's describing an editioned print, not an original work of art at all). But 500 pounds isn't that outrageous for a print and a limited book. However, that's only for the first couple of hundred buyers. It's 800 pounds thereafter for the rest of the edition. Not unheard of, but costly, and some portion of it (the percentage unknown) is going to the bookstore.
Hi E.J.H.I never said there are general criteria. It's just that I have certain criteria for me personally, as I tried to convey. You almost make the impression that you think I want to be a kind of art police.
I don't mind anybody calling anything art. More power to them.
But nobody tells me what I should consider art or not either...
But maybe you would be more comfortable if I called it (again and again in my personal opinion) bad art, rather than not art? I sometimes get the feeling there is where the sensitivities lie.
Here in Iceland a young fellow from Germany came to visit a couple of years ago, and in the Mývatn National park he wrote the word "moss" in the moss by severely damaging it. In the arctic climate this kind of moss is the only groundcovering flora on the lava, and it takes literally ages as in several hundred years to form. His justification for this blatant act of vandalism? "Art". I can tell you it sure had shock value...
So now you tell me Arty, do you think that was art? Bad art? Shocking art Criminal art? Maybe even not art at all?
Hi again,Hm Arty, you did get me thinking on what those personal criteria of mine are. Not an easy question to answer.
I think for me the personality of the artist should shine through in the work. Directly.
Take for instance your own work as an example; when I see one of your paintings or drawings here on the forum without reading the caption I instantly recognize it as yours, it has soul, life and character.
Looking at, or even holding a copy of 1984 an industrially produced book will never move me in such a way. The artist has to tell me his little "pulped fiction" joke and describe the proces to explain why this ordinary book qualifies as art and my reaction will be "meh, I already read Orwell"....
I'll stop rambling now, and go back to some paperwork I've been putting off to the last moment.