Does modern art need to be decades old before it is appreciated for what it is? Will we be commenting on Damien Hirst’s atrocities in 2050 with a critical yet accepting reverence? The fact is that with art, it is the ultimate objective topic and yet every few years, something that is deemed ‘not-art’ becomes acknowledged as being a pre-cursor or influence to something that IS accepted universally. This therefore means that art needs people like Hirst and Emin to push back boundaries so that their successors can tidy it up and make it more formal, without losing the innovative concepts…thoughts?
Recent News
- All about the games
- Why has the music industry gone into its shell?
- Is online poker about to be legalised in the USA like the UK did 2 years ago?
- How can we extend our lives?
- Education provides a foundation, but knowledge has always been king
- Modern Art vs Post-Modern Art
- Violence against Women Prevention
- Byron Allen Welcomes a Daughter
- Jim Carrey Relaxed on Idol Set After Breakup