Can you tell what it is yet?

As usual the Press are trying to brew a storm in a teacup, this time  over two canvases shown during the Arts weekend, featuring Disney characters in same sex kisses.
 
The debate, and occasional slanging match, on line and now in print, has divided into two camps; one questioning homophobia and the other asking whether the paintings are actually any good.
 
Both are generating lots of smoke and heat but little light.
 
As with Education, nobody can come up with any one agreeable definition of what Art is nor its use in modern day society.
 
To my mind these paintings are simplistic and whilst showing some draughtsmanship, exhibit little in the way of artistry but that is merely my opinion.
 
At times I despair over the state of modern art where seemingly the ability to talk the talk is rated far more than any amount of walking. 

But as Duchamps proved with his “Fountain”, Art is what you make it, or in his case where you find it.
 
I suspect that his exhibition entry was somewhat tongue in cheek but modern “artists” find so much more in his statement; whether it is there to be found or not.
 
In some ways Fountain is like Carl Andre’s infamous pile of bricks (“Equivalent VIII”) which rates as a most audacious con trick according to some commentators; mostly of the red top or right wing press kind. It sounds rubbish but on viewing asks the observer to think about Art and how it is defined.
 
Why is this pile of bricks Art and my patio not? If the bricks were arranged differently, how would that affect matters? Does removing one or two bricks make it a more powerful statement?
 
Looking at the Guernsey Disneys I feel nothing and am not challenged in any way.
 
It’s two sets of cartoon characters kissing.
 
So what?
 
Add two same sex children in the foreground holding hands and looking at these images and then you have some meat to chew over.
 
Or two realistic and modern equivalents echoing the kiss with the cartoon behind them. Again, something to get you thinking and talking.
 
But on their own, these paintings are mute and would not rate further attention if not for the media spoon stirring.
 
If they were meant to challenge our prejudices then it is clearly aimed only at the homophobic because the rest of us don’t care. I might not like to see the real thing on the High Street but that reflects my general distaste for people trying to chew the face off of their partner in public, regardless of their sexuality.
 
But what is Art for and is this Art?
 
Art for me is anything which strikes a creative chord and resonates within me. I liked the pile of bricks but not the urinal. I actively dislike the kitsch of Jeff Koons yet it sells well at auction so perhaps I’m missing something.
 
I appreciated Gormley’s figure looming over Castle Cornet but see little that is praiseworthy in Goldsworthy’s balls.
 
London’s National Gallery can leave me cold and overexposed through yard after yard of religious masterpieces yet pull me up short in front of something small and exquisite.
 
There is no rhyme or reason to my choices other than that inexplicable chime of recognition. I cannot explain art nor my appreciation of it.
 
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have an opinion or don’t recognise good art (on my terms) when I see it.
 
To use the definition which makes all critics cringe “I know what I like”.
 
So for me, these cartoons are not Art especially as I feel the artist could have done so much more with the idea.
 
Let’s see how she develops.
 
As for the homophobic debate, I’ll leave poking that hornets nest for another time.