Who is John Waters to say that a painter’s work has no merit?

The closest John Waters ever came to any sort of spurious artistic credibility was to screw Sinéad O Connor, and I’m sure Sinéad screwed him too, in a reciprocal arrangement, as these things tend to be, but he’s been trading off the notoriety ever since.

Waters only has credibility by association with other people who might have achieved something in the artistic area. All he ever did was write a bad Eurovision song that got nowhere.

Not exactly art-critic material, wouldn’t you say?

Check out this link to a magazine cover that, I believe, is an excellent example of political satire. It’s quite provocative, shocking and controversial, but I think it works well. I’m sure that the subject would not have been too happy with the image, but I feel that it pokes fun at media coverage and not at the man:

The New Yorker

A big improvement on the recent commenter whose best shot was to call me an idiot.

By the way, I’m not sure the paintings exaggerated any of Mr Cowen’s features. Could it possibly be that people are offended by an accurate representation of the Taoiseach?

First, I was unaware that he had used double-sided tape instead of a nail. This would certainly make it easier for the gallery to remove any marks caused by the artist.

Second, I am aware that Mr Cowen is not associated with either of the galleries.

Third, according to my Chambers Dictionary, a caricature is “a representation, especially a drawing, of someone with their most noticeable and distinctive features exaggerated for comic effect”. I think that Mr Casby’s caricature certainly fits these criteria.

Fourth, I am aware that the gallery is not a school, that it does not have a principal, and that Mr Casby is not subject to its punishment. I was using the school and the headmaster in a metaphorical sense.

Fifth, I completely agree. As they say, I don’t know about art, but I know what I like.

Sixth, I did not assign either of these actions to the artist. Again, I was speaking metaphorically.

Seventh, As I said in my original comment, I do not think that Waters blamed the internet for the incident, but for the media reaction to it and the culture that, for good and bad, has been spawned by the internet.

Eight, If I may take each of these three points on its own:
(i) You said, “you clearly have your own views on what material people should be permitted to view.” I do not agree with this statement. I certainly have my own views on what I would like to view. But, I am completely against censorship of any type. I never said that Mr Casby’s paintings should not be seen by people. In fact, they are freely available to view on your site and on the internet. I would be unhappy if I was restricted from viewing them or any other material. In fact, if you read my comments you will see that I was supportive of the artist’s action and found humour in it.

(ii) You said: “Would you be more qualified than I am, or anybody else, to decide what is of sufficient quality to meet your approved standard?” If I understand the question correctly, then I would say that yes I am more qualified than you, or anyone else, to decide this. Similarly, you are more qualified than I, or anyone, to decide what is of sufficient quality to meet your approved standard. Each individual builds up their own tastes and interests throughout their lives. Nobody can tell me or you or anyone else what music, books, films, TV shows, or even paintings we should like or not like. But, each of us should be entitled to express our own opinion about what we love passionately and also about what we dislike as well. You do that quite well on your site and I made my opinion known in the comments.
(iii) You said, “Perhaps you’d send in the police, as happened in this case?” I believe that it has been confirmed that it was either or both of the galleries, not the government, that alerted the gardaí. It seems that it related to security issues rather than concern about the painting’s artistic merits. But, I think your question asks if I would alert the guards if I was aware of crimes against culture. You know, this is not a bad idea. Perhaps our police force could be issued with warrants to enter people’s homes and go through their CD collections. Offensive stuff like Celine Dion and boy bands would be confiscated and destroyed on the spot. The guilty parties would be given penalty points and, when they reach a certain level, they would be barred from all record stores. Similar operations could be carried out in other areas of the arts, with regular warnings by An Garda Síochána on TV, especially at Christmas. In no time, Ireland would become a cultural mecca, with thousands of artists flocking to our shores as we enter a new phase of cultural renaissance.

It’s heartening to note the sensitivity being shown to “the child” born to Sinead O’Connor and John Waters, but her right to privacy needn’t concern anyone here. Her anonymity was offered up years ago, on the altar of the Irish Times’ Opinion pages, by her father. Her name is Róisín, and I know this only because John Waters brought this fact into the public domain time and time and time again. One could speculate as to why. Fathers’ rights were, and rightly remain, an issue to the IT columnist and perhaps the action of repeatedly naming her was a public affirmation of his role; maybe he simply wanted to annoy her mother… who knows? Whatever the reason, he named her in his articles with relentless regularity and neither he, nor we, can unring that bell.

Those references to her used to bother me then, and the advancing of the “won’t someone think of the children” argument bothers me now. Sword and shield, and all that.

First, nobody banged a nail in a wall. He used double-sided tape.

Second, he didn’t hang a painting of anyone associated with the galleries.

Third, as far as I can see, the paintings are not caricatures but fair likenesses of Mr Cowen.

Fourth, the gallery is not a school, nor does it have a principal teacher, and Conor Casby is not subject to its punishment.

Fifth, your failure to see merit in the paintings is neither here nor there. The same applies to John Waters’s assessment of them. It doesn’t matter what you, John Waters or I think of the pictures. Your views on their artistic quality are as irrelevant to this matter as mine are.

Sixth, the artist did none of the things you speculate might have happened. He didn’t swap a painting and he didn’t make a film. You can hardly condemn him for doing something you made up, can you?

Seventh, the internet had absolutely nothing to do with Conor Casby’s actions, except in Waters’s fevered brain. He’s obsessed with the medium because he can’t control it.

Eighth, you clearly have your own views on what material people should be permitted to view. Would you be more qualified than I am, or anybody else, to decide what is of sufficient quality to meet your approved standard? Perhaps you’d send in the police, as happened in this case?

Personally, I admire the sense of mischief and the lampooning of those in power that is a result of these pranks. Full marks to Mr Casby for pulling his one off successfully. He should also be applauded for using his inititiave in these hard economic times to come up with a novel approach to marketing his paintings. And while I find some humour in this aspect of his achievement, I fail to see any artistic merit or hint of sarcasm or irony in his work.

I read Mr Waters’ article and have found it to be the best thing written about this incident so far. I agree that Mr Casby’s action could be constued as an act of vandalism. If someone can enter a gallery and hang up a painting then surely it would not be wrong to swap one of the gallery’s paintings for it. Or perhaps I could make a short film on my phone of a nude man wearing a Brian Cowen mask taking a dump. Then I could transfer it onto film, break into a screening room at the Omniplex and put it on before the latest blockbuster. Would it be art? I doubt it. But, would it get me free publicity and start a conversation? You bet it would.

Also, Mr Waters did not say that ‘the whole thing was caused by the internet.’ I think that he was trying to say that the media reaction to this incident is symptomatic of the type of culture that has developed as a result of the internet over the last decade. In the old days, media content was controlled by those in charge of the powerful media organisations. This led to a certain level of quality and taste in film and TV that was, nonetheless, still seen as inferior to to ‘higher’ forms of art such as painting, literature and theatre. Of course, there was still a lot of crap out there, but the audience was free to criticise it and I would think that a lot of this criticism took place in public houses.

The rise of the internet means that it is now possible for artists of all kinds to put their work up on the web and it is possible for the audience to access so much more than ever before. Obviously, this has led to less control over quality and, hence, a new type of culture has arisen. This culture favours style over substance, quantity over quality, and tiolet humour over wit. It also means that discussion has moved away from the pub and onto emails, message boards and blogs. As a result, a writer who is employed by one of this country’s most distinguished newspapers is attacked on a personal level and subjected to namecalling. Is is any wonder, then, that Mr Casby’s work is vilified by the traditional media, but lauded by proponents of the new media?