GB: Art has two roles to fill. As it always has had. One is to decorate: to brighten up suburban rooms or the bland foyer of an office block, to give life to a town square or colour to an otherwise drab urban facade.
Which is, in fact, to say very little. In many countries where 'art' has not been taken over by critics, colleges and cliquey galleries this decorative quality remains it's primary function. It is only in our (Western) culture where it has become a thing of awe. Something to stand and gawp at. Something to preserve in formaldehyde if you will...
JL: And the second role?
GB: Very closely linked to the first. Art also exists to allow everyone a creative outlet. To allow everyone to brighten up their own rooms their own offices etc.. Once again, this 'honest' function has been taken away from us in the West by critics who tell us that only the work of X is worth having and that one has to be trained to be an artist. But this is to overlook (the fact) that better works of art are often pinned to a fridge door by a little magnet than are on show in many galleries.
...
JL: You are very critical of the 'art world'.
GB: Yes. If by the 'art world' you mean the major prizes, the big galleries and so on, then yes, I am crtical. Together these people, or organisations, have contrived to steal 'art' from the ordinary person and to cloak it in mystery... Many so-called amateurs produce the most enjoyable of works but are not 'accepted' because they are not 'trained' or, more likely, are not able to explain themselves in the current manner. Well it's all a nonsense! There should be no need to explain or even to understand. Whether or not one is 'trained' one creates, one enjoys one's creation or one does not. It is the whole idea that art can only be done by those in the know that I find so offensive.
