The Real Deal

Not my bike, just one I saw on a lunchtime wander. My brother and I have constant arguments/discussions on the best frame material for bikes (we're so rock and roll), with me often on the side of steel, and Adam much more inclined towards the weave of Carbon Fibre. Occasionally he'll come round, and might have found a neat compromise with his latest object of desire.

I had thought about using the Dean Gallery, after walking round there again (this time the weather was a bit more dreary, so I actually went inside the gallery instead of diverting to the cemetery). So much in there to like, and an equal measure of stuff to think "what in the hell was he trying to do?"

But I came out with a smile on my face after regarding a recreation of a couple of Paolozzi's workshops, and finding a couple of artists I hadn't heard of before. Interestingly I also saw some photos that reminded me quite starkly of wingpig's stuff, but... Not as good. There was something just too sharp about it. Too realistic. The darkness and emotion was lacking in the cigarette butts pictured on the ground.

Trips places like this always get me thinking about exactly what it is that makes someone renowned. The right time, the right place seems to be a general rule of thumb, more so than simple talent. Talent helps, to be sure, but one day I was watching a programme on that tricky subject of modern 'art' and there was a bloke with a 10x8ft canvas. He had a tin of varnish, dipped the brush in and flung about 8 vertical strips of varnish up the canvas. Brush never touched. He stood back. Admired. Was asked how mcuh it was now worth. "About £8,000 I think". I threw a shoe at the television.

I would imagine there have been thousands of paintings created with a red canvas and a black blob on them - what makes one stand out from the others? Why is Jackson Pollock a 'genius' when he sprays paint 'with meaning' but I'd simply be a pleb trying to make a point?

I love art, and I would never presume to suggest that my own personal taste (Degas being top of the list for reasons I simply cannot explain, taste is a funny thing) is worth more, but where is the line drawn between artistic ability and a grand idea? Hell, I went to the Baltic Centre a few years back and there was a video for one of the big installations on how it was created. It looked like a load of bin bags and bits of wood painted black, thrown on the floor randomly, then splashed with pink paint. The 'artist' was in the foreground explaining in earnest tones the reasoning, while in the background a gang of blokes in hi-viz jackets actually threw (quite literally) it together.

Some say that art is something which challenges you and makes people talk about it. If that's art then so is the continued presence of Dan Parks in the Scotland rugby set-up, or Nicola Sturgeon's running of the health service.

I prefer my art to be something which goes deeper, which sparks in me an aesthetically-created emotional response. I smiled at Paolozzi's Pavlov Dog.

As an aside, things definitely going better today. Even the altercation I had with a driver this morning turned into a chat, a laugh, and a parting of ways after a handshake.