THE BROTHER of a friend of mine once told his grandfather that he intended to go to art college after leaving school. The old man looked at his grandson suspiciously and replied: “Art? That’s a’ done wi’ computers up north!”

Not sure, but I think I know what he meant, or at least where he was coming from. Art’s reputation has been tarnished in modern times; once seen as the achievement of geniuses whose skill one could only marvel at, it is now more often perceived as a confidence trick perpetrated by smart young graduates “expressing” themselves all over the place.

I confess to being a philistine (or should that be “Philistine”?); I don’t “get” most modern art. I apply a similar criterion to the definition of art as I do to the definition of sport. When embroiled in the familiar pub discussion about whether or not darts is a sport, I make the point that an activity should only be considered a sport if being fitter helps improve your performance. Ergo, darts is a game but not a sport. Okay, it’s not a perfect rule, but it works for me.

So with the question of “what is art?”, I ask: “Could I, as someone who has never received any training as an artist, physically produce that piece of work to the same technical standard?”

I look at an unmade bed, or a room with a lights witch in it, or, at a pinch, a collection of bricks, and I have to answer “yes, I could do that.” It may be whimsical, or represent a profound concept to the “artist”, but when I look at some of the classic paintings in Tate Britain or Kelvingrove Art Gallery, I see genius, and I marvel at how any human being could be so blessed with such an incomprehensible level of skill. I see Tracey Emin’s unmade bed and I see an emperor’s new clothes. Not only could I have produced that, I have done on many occasions, and not been paid for my trouble.

As I say, I’m a philistine/Philistine.

Nice work if you can get it

So here’s my proposition: nominate this site for the Turner Prize. No, seriously.

It’s innovative – how many other candidates for the prize have nominated themselves? It’s interactive – you can leave a comment and the author/artist may even respond. It’s about self-expression, both of the artist and of those who visit it. Visitors to the gallery could become part of the exhibit even as they viewed it (provided I was available to moderate comments at that time). It’s democratic – anyone can participate. 

Plus, my plugging it as a contender is itself a totally post-ironic and avant garde act: how cutting edge can anyone get, dahling?!

And, most important of all, it doesn’t deserve to be nominated for, or to win, any major artistic prize. So, a sure thing, I would’ve said.

You can just see it, can’t you, on the news reports of this year’s Turner Prize shortlist: a lonely, isolated iMac sitting in the centre of a gallery in the Tate Modern. The camera pans slowly round to reveal: my big baw face looking out at you. Genius, yeah?

No.

So get on the phone/web/email to the Turner Prize people and get lobbying. Now’s our chance people – our chance to claim one of the art world’s most prestigious prizes for the blogscape*, while exposing said prize as a delusionary irrelevance. And let’s face it: what could be more irrelevant than this blog? 

 

* © Bryan Appleyard