Drawing the line in art.

Art is a form of expression, a means to extract emotions and find a voice amongst a crowd of passionate and soulless forms.

Soulless because the dreams they follow eat away at their hearts, yet the passion still burns within, a roaring flame that can never be extinguished except by death.

Grim as this may sound it is true of many artists in all mediums, The Poet, The Musician, The Sculptor, Painter,Photographer and the author all hold these traits in common it is what drives them much as any profession and it is within their creations that those who can not are fulfilled with joy and entertainment.

But where is the line to be drawn on what is distinguished as art, is Tracy Hemmings unmade bed as much art as say Van Gogh's Sunflowers or De Vinci's Mona Liza? can we caragorise them all as artists while including such innovations like Andy Warhol or even Banksy?

I will admit I used to have quite a closed mind when it came to art and my preferences leaned more toward classic art I like to see a clear representation of the subject, perhaps that is the Photographer in me, either way I found it difficult to appreciate other forms of expression especially in modern art.

One modern Artist with whom I found it most difficult to understand was the world renound (and local lad) Damien Hurst, when I first heard about him and saw some of his work my immediate reaction was "he is nothing more than a butcher, anyone could do that" and at the time I refused to think any other way ( I know I know I'm stubborn).

This was one artist who had caused many a night of heated discussion between myself and a good friend, now on the subject of my friend who is a very talented wood sculptor and is also a fantastic Photographer, our artistic tastes differ on many levels.

He appreciates a more raw style, something which pushes the boundaries beyond what others believe to be correct or in some cases morally right, and at one time I would disagree because I didn't understand that our ideals were both correct, Art has always pushed the boundaries, shocked and often appalled the public but it doesn't all have to be that way.

Which brings us back to Mr Damien Hurst, it wasn't until I saw an interview with him that I understood what he was doing and began to appreciate his work as art, he portrays death in his work, the cow and sheep cut in half, the diamond studded skull (for the love of god) are all representations of death and the complexity and sometimes beauty we often overlook.

Again though, where is the line drawn, another artist who's name I can not recall, sold a piece of work for a large sum of money, the piece? was simply a piece of crumpled paper with the names of several Greek gods written on it, is this art I ask? to me I think the line has to be drawn when the creativity isn't applied I don't believe it is for these "Art Critics" in the world of art to make judgement on what is considered art.

I do believe that a line must be drawn somewhere otherwise the value of art as a creative tool will decline even more than it already has, by all means push boundaries but keep within the one rule of art and that is creativity with imagination.

Is vinyl still desirable?

Many moons ago myself and a friend began a small vinyl search service for a few friends in a local pub, hunting down the records they either didn't have time to go find themselves or couldn't find.

We would search many places such as car boot sales, second hand markets and charity shops many of these places didn't really have a clue if something was worth Fifty pence or One hundred and Fifty Pounds so many bargains were found and profits made due to having access to resources for the price guides.

My own personal collection of vinyl was massing around three hundred LP's and 12" EP's and around six hundred  7" singles, many sought after by high paying collectors, along with my friends collection we amounted a stock of over Two Thousand LP's and so began a small market stall business, once a week we would brave the elements and stand at the stall dealing in our wares in the mid 1980's Vinyl was like gold dust.

Our venture didn't last long as we couldn't keep up with local competition but my love of vinyl lasted for many years from then on, unfortunately my whole collection was stolen in 1993 and I now only have a box of around 100 LP's and  a handful of singles non of which are worth anything to anyone, apart from one.

I was lucky enough to be the winner in a competiton on the official The Who website, my prize was a copy of a  limited edition (1000 copies only released) Live at leeds Ultimate box set which included a release of the original Live at Leeds on vinyl LP and summertime blues 7" vinyl single, an awsome prize for any Who fan, of which I am.


Since winning the box set I have put the box set up for sale yet havn't had much interest, the price I feel  is fair (£300 as the only other two copies available are in foreign countries and both are much higher price) and I would think that The Who and this particular release are a very sought after collectors item.

The lack of interest is what brings me to this blog, is vinyl still desirable in this technological age of MP3's ?

I know of some people who still collect, but I think that the desirability of a vinyl record is deteriorating, yes they are easily damaged and scratched (unless looked after properly) but what I loved most about vinyl other than the cover art, was holding that big piece of black plastic in your hands, watching the light reflecting in the grooves and that pop/click as the needle connected with the record.

There was something much more personal about a record, people took more care of them than they do compact discs for example, it was a proud thing to show off your record collection at one time now people look at you gone out, some don't even know what they are.

I hope there are still some who recognise the value of vinyl not just it's historical value but the knowledge it brought with it about the people involved in it's creation.