Can we class advertising as art?

Which I think begets the conjecture that perhaps the issue at question is not so much what is or is not art by whatever criteria, but rather more appropriately, the issue might be, "What is criticism?"

That's very good -- critics don't have the personal insight of each individual to consider. In that way, a critic may find little meaning in art such as Haring but it is what it is just as much as cave painting is what it is. The same goes for how it is in both cases.

art critics and art historians so often aren't painters - I find that they theorise much more and read meanings into things that the artists surely never intended.

art is very very personal and yes Lightwizard - chacun a son gout, each to their own, one man's meat etc etc etc Some like Haring I simply don't relate to, others I can appreciate the skill but don't like, other work just makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck and reaches you.

It's always been rather unseemly for an artist to begin criticizing the work of others. It can be construed to be self-fullfilling egotism. The best historians and critics don't run amuk theorizing but they often refer to what the work means to them. In "Shock of the New," Robert Hughes presents commentary that he isn't presenting as "the law," it's presented as suggestions to understand and appreciate the art. When I first saw Haring's work I didn't know what to make of it. Rather reminded me of my first sip of a martini or bite of escargot. Some work grows on you and some doesn't.

i know what you mean about unseemly - but it is inevitable that artists do critically discuss the work of others, it is part of analysing and considering your own and others work. I think you have to give valid reasons for the criticism and it is only a personal opinion, not 'the' truth, just a personal truth.

I meet with a small group of friends on a monthly basis and we often critique each others work - constructive but it can be pretty critical - and often very helpful in clarifying your own thoughts, even if you disagree the act of justifying your view helps to work through it and explain it and possibly modify it.

I like Hughes because he has a curious mind and seems full of common sense rather than high flown academic verbosity.

Hughes' excitement over the work shows and he often uses a witty humor to embellish his reponse to the art. I think when I saw the Haring exhibition at Castelli where he was lets lose to create gigantic murals that interconnected from room to room is where I responded them as cave paintings. They communicated everyday activity but many of the symbols were making visual social comments on the state of the human condition. His AIDS inspired paintings are brash and effective. Castelli was quoted as saying in response to the critics about Haring being just about line drawing, "Yes, but all the lines are in the right place."

maybe he is an artist that needs to be seen in situ? I reserved judgement on Anthony Gormley's Field when I saw it on TV - but seeing it in reality was different - it was extremely powerful and I loved it.

you had the benefit of seeing the Haring as it is meant to be seen - so I'll leave the jury out on him and if I ever see the originals I can make a final judgement on whether they are for me or not.

yes, I like Hughes excitement over work, it is infectious and even if you don't agree it gives you an insight into why it works for him.

I liked it when Hughes revised his "The Fatal Shore" as a series on Australian Television in 2000, when Sydney had the Olympic Games. He wasn't quite so cynical, but he gave the country a good ribbing. I like his approach. I have flashbacks of school listening to you speaking about "Shock of the New". It really did make you think about the work...