In an art magazine recently (I use the term 'art' loosely) there was one feature which caught my proverbial (and actual) eye. An ex-cricketing gentleman (who shall remain nameless, the fool) was producing 'art' by hitting cricket balls covered in paint against a canvas. I believe I did this when I was about five, using tennis balls and my mother’s kitchen wall.
However, I did not get paid millions for this childish behaviour; in fact I probably got a smack on the arse, to be frank. Did the cricketer get a similar punishment? Was he made to clean up his mess, then banished to sulk in his room while he thought about what he'd done?
No. He got the first thing. The millions. What a farce.
Some washed up old sportsman trying to make some extra cash can now be an artist? What about people who can actually paint, spend their whole lives struggling to scrape a living from their work, while Mr Smackballs makes some splodges on a canvas (not even in an interesting way, I may add) and he gets a bloody fortune for it.
'Abstract art' covers all manner of sins doesn't it?
- Ruthie (the girl who likes to rant about annoying stuff)
P.S. What Ruthie means by people who can actually paint is, well, Ruthie! Check her out:
Phantom by Ruth Joyce
No comments:
Post a Comment