Depressingly true.

Here is the core truth...

*....From this point, as we enter the current century, the importance of the art on display has almost nothing to do with public enjoyment, understanding, or acceptance. It is more 'conceptual', 'political', and 'diverse' than ever before, which translates to more boring, progressive, and multicultural. While Modernism was mainly European, the current art world is decidedly not. In the last section of the MoMA survey, we are presented with work by artists from Turkey, Ghana, China, the Sahara, and of Palestinian background. This new global view references colonialism, immigration, and displacement, all the sine qua non of conscience-driven contemporary art. The visual enjoyment is gone, however, in place of blankly presented information and objects, bureaucratically pompous in style and intent....*

Excellent article, thanks.

Meanwhile these references give a Illuminated Understanding of Art and its relation to culture altogether.
The author including a major component of both Art & Literature while studying philosophy at Columbia University. During his lifetime he engaged in the most comprehensive and sophisticated study of Art and Literature, especially of the Western tradition.

This references describes how different kinds of art (mis)-understand the nature of Reality

http://www.theascentoforpheus.org/varietal-characteristic-of-reality

Other references:
Artists Statement
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/transcending_the_camera/index.html

Art Is Love:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/art_is_love/index.html

Testimonials:

http://www.aboutadidam.org/testimonials/art_architecture/index.html

A comprehensive introduction to his Image Art

http://www.adidaupclose.org/Art_and_Photography/index.html

A related reference: http://www.artandphysics.com
http:

There's a lot of toffee-nosed snobbery in this space, which by and large has replaced true talent?

And nowhere more apparent than when a toddlers finger painting was judged by this mob of snobs as a masterpiece and fetched a veritable fortune at some art Auction.

For mine, art will always be presented by impeccable realism, albeit with colour differentiation and or accentuation, marking the art as art as opposed to an artful photograph

. Ancient sculptors could make a form so lifelike that even the veins and arteries were represented and anatomically correct. And created landscapes that looked real enough to walk into.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Diver, in that art should please the eye rather than toffee-nosed snobbery.

I liked that ad that saw a very lifelike statue come to life and scare the BJ's out of a young boy before resuming the frozen pose as the excited youngster reported to his disbelieving parents his remarkable vision.

Culminating with the model stepping down off of the dais for her lunch break when all the humans had wandered off.

Given art can copy life, see no reason why life can't copy art. And mark the copied art as true talent based art, rather than a tiny toddler's finger doodle? Or cartoonish caricature?
Alan B.

Give me Tom Roberts & Co any day, thanks.

I am reminded of a friend of mine, many years ago, who was melting down an ingot of lead that he had standing on end; as he played the oxy torch over it it assumed some weird shapes, so it was suggested that he enter it in an art competition that was currently asking for entries.

This was done, with the tag "Untitled" and he got a commendation!!

diver dan & Alan B,
What ? You mean regurgitating food onto a concrete slab is not art ? Well, you're wrong. Quite a few years ago the Beatty Qld Govt was so impressed they gave the german "Artist" $115,000.00 for it.
The other artist a young maiden hung jewellry into the bushes in a park for people to find. Again Beatty=Qld=Govt paid her $90,000.00.
You two really must spend some time together over a Latte with some "artists".

Nothin' that a good fire won't fix.