The New Art Movement

'There has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art'

If you've been keeping up with the news lately you may have been given the faintest inkling that the world is in financial meltdown. We've been constantly bombarded with stories about how everyone is out of pocket and, according to the headlines, people are selling their homes in exchange for rice. In fact, you're probably looking at your pets right now and wondering what they taste like.

So, in this tense economic situation, it could be considered a risk to be spending money on any elaborate pieces of public art - especially when it is of the "modern art" variety, and therefore not so well liked and appreciated by everyone.

People are obviously against the idea of their hard-earned money going towards something that offers little benefit. After witnessing the public reaction to the recent MPs expenses scandal that left the nation baying for blood, there must be council officials all over the country sweating and drawing short straws about who's going to have to appear on Newsnight and explain the £3million 40ft turd they've commissioned to be constructed at the local precinct.

Visiting art galleries is on the increase, presumably as most of them are free. It seems even people who would have never visited an art gallery before are becoming tempted by the cheap days out - even if it is looking at a painting and pretending to admire the lighting before an American tourist steps in your way. And then run off to buy a Monet fridge magnet to advertise your new-found culture.

Generally, the public believe that true "art" refers to the old-fashioned style, where you have some idea as to what the work is supposed to represent. They like to look at something like the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo for hours because the people look like real people and it's been painted on the ceiling - so they can sit and compare it to how they've never been able to paint their ceiling at home without getting paint in their hair.

A room where the lights go on and off would not necessarily be considered as art by everyone who saw it. Walking into a room to see the lights going off for 5 seconds and then coming back on for 5 seconds would not necessarily cause people to stare in amazement at how it represents the division in society and the divinity of human beings in the extensive magnitude or dimension that is the universe. They're more likely to walk in and say 'Is there something wrong with the lights?'

In general, people don't seem to like modern art. A television programme last week showed people offering their opinion on modern artists. Surprisingly, one of the most frequent comments from people was that artists look scruffy.

There would have been a time when you could walk into an artist's studio and see that he had white hair and spectacles and a waistcoat and you would assume that he knew his onions.

But people obviously don't seem to like the modern, open-toed approach to art as they see it as a move away from more respectful, traditional methods of creativity.

But there has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art. People used to stand and shout at the fact that the council have just paid £8million to see the "art" that is a chair in the middle of an empty room.

In order to impress the aloof critics, people have started to pretend that they actually see the reasoning behind the exhibits.

So now, people pat the artist on the head, call them "amazing, darling", and ask them how they got the ingenious idea to paint on a wall while wearing a blindfold and then urinate over it.

People used to have paintings of flowers and rivers and trees on their wall by artists who were creative enough to be able to represent flowers and rivers and trees to scale. But now there're going to feel like they should be keeping up with the times and staple one of their cats to the wall instead. Or cut off their own hand and mount it above the television. It's art, baby.

Some form of controversial art appears in the news every week. Last weekend, it was the new exhibition by Banksy - who is one modern artist that people often enjoy. This time public money was spent creating the exhibit and not taking it down as it usually is.

More notoriously, one of the most controversial pieces of "art" was announced under the headline "The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 of public money for a work that is, quite literally, a load of excrement" - which referred to a man who left a personal touch by filling cans with...his, let's say artistic "vision".

An Italian named Piero Manzoni died in 1963, but not before ensuring that he filled a total of 90 cans with his vision.

If someone sent a can of vision to your door, you would most probably take offence and contact the police. But it seems if you send a can of vision to the local museum it gets you £22,300.

This does however; leave open the possibility of art fraud from millions of people having visions every day.

Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and antiques, as well as art, are becoming a more and more popular investment.

There must have been a time in the middle of the 20th century when people suddenly thought that the past is 10 times better than the present and started to collect old things.

Presumably though, a Georgian desk would probably be of a much higher quality than a flat-pack desk that, if you tried to assemble yourself, would get covered with the contents of your arteries.

And giving someone a 40-year-old sofa would be an insult, whereas giving them one that was 200-years-old would be much more of a worthy gift.

It seems that in this economic downturn, people are investing more in antiques. While their own house may only be worth £14.50, their Victorian writing desk is worth a killing.

But it seems undecided yet as to whether people are going to embrace modern art or stick to their guns with the more traditional approach. Either way, it's not going to be the last we see of sawn-in-half cows and a pile of rubbish on top of a bed.

It seems the Mona Lisa is so last week. Poor Leonardo da Vinci (an avid reader of this blog); he's probably turning in his grave. It's not his fault he was born before the days of innovative art. We can only imagine what he could have done with empty rooms and a can of vision.