Art and the world

Of course as Art is defined now it does not have to have any existence at all in the real world. It can exist merely as a conception on the mind of the artist. It is art nonetheless.

The difficulty with defining art as acceptable ( re: the crossing the line discussion) when it exists within a household or community is that Wall uses an example - Ulysses - a book that was famously banned by the courts as being pornographic when it was first released. So Mr Wall would not have been allowed Ulysses as part of his community
because a court ( prompted by outraged moralists of the time) banned the book.

Wall is arguing for an excessively limiting form of art. There are many examples of art that are morally neutral; the morality or immorality is read into it by the reader/viewer/listener. Art's place in the world shifts with time and changing cultures; to try to pin a work of art to one moment and one point of view means you ignore all the other possible meanings and interpretations another person could have. Who can say which world the art exists in? You see it in your world, and I see it in mine.

Seth, if Stoddart is the best sculptor in the world, then sculpture is now dead. I'll admit he is an excellent craftsman. But do yourself a favour and take in some Rodin. Rodin took the human form and told stories with it, stories of hope, triumph, despair, dogged persistence. You may or may not like those stories, but they are there. Stoddart's works are designed to decorate the sides of pompous government buildings. Nothing wrong with that - government buildings need love too. But let's not pretend that it is great art. It is formulaic and derivative.

The only place where Stoddart seems to break out and work to his own artistic vision is in his busts. he does busts not only of the rich and powerful but also of a London waiter, and some of those busts are clearly more than just portraiture. Not great, perhaps, but good.