IS IT STILL ART? (CONTINUED)



Got on to talking about the Momart warehouse fire today with my artist mate, Janine.

I asked her for an expert ruling on this posting. Janine insisted that a pile of ashes does not an artwork make -- and so the barbecued Damien Hirsts and Tracy Emins can no longer be considered "art."

However Janine, who knows her Andy Warhols from her Pablo Picassos, opened up a whole new hornet's nest with another aesthetic conundrum.

Take the work of the minimalist artist Dan Flavin, she suggested. Flavin's most famous works are light sculptures made out of commercially available fluorescent tubes. But what happens when the strip lights stop working? Can they be replaced -- or is this an act of artistic vandalism equal to drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa? Perhaps only the artist should be allowed to replace them (in Flavin's case this could prove difficult because he died 8 years ago.) And what about when the gallery switches off the lights at the end of the day? Do the sculptures stop being art when the plug's pulled on them? If so, should they be left on 24 hours a day?

It's all very confusing.

Discuss