The artists don’t give a damn about how they figure in critics or scholars gossips. Their interest is their ability to move viewers with their creation. Maybe also to sell it. The little money they they spent on materials. But they have no influence over the market.

The researchers critics write ton of words about creation, for meager salaries, never soiling their hands in colors. They seek to be reputable for their expertise, not to be wealthy selling art.

The commercial domain is about finding which works/artists would be fashionable in the foreseeable future, to invest or sell. They never say to artist what to create; they don’t know; they dont’t care.

If you will start seeing the “Art World” as made up from these, you’ll stop confusing between “Art World” and art. You may one day understand what art is. It’s an elusive aim.

So what about your notion that work of art must be sacred?
Is a undecorated jade axe, dug from some 4000y old grave an piece of art? Is highly stylized grafitti from restrooms of Grand Central, Mnahattan? Is the gaping vagina of a roped up woman from a polaroid by Araki?
Why not?
Why yes?
What makes a work of art?

I should. I took the photograph in 2002, and inadvertently
processed it in a way which introduced unintended granularity
and a balsamic hue which fits San Francisco.

You are welcome to use it — it flatters me that you do —
but I wish you would credit me.

It has been on my Web site jim-collier.com since 2002.
You’ll find it at

http://www.jim-collier.com/lifeofacity/downtown/pages/transamer.html

A digital signature appears in the image which makes it
easy to locate on any public page on the Web.

Jim Collier
j.collier@cross-comp.com