What is British art? Is it art made by artists born in Britain? Because a lot of British artists live and work in Berlin or New York or in other places. Is art made by artists who live in Britain? A lot of those artists aren’t British by origin but they live here and produce work here. Is it a certain style of art, or art that deals with particularly British topics?
– AT, Facebook

I think British Art is a cultural state of mind. It’s always been a bit ‘punk’, a bit ‘out there’, more self-deprecating. Coronation St has been on our TVs for 50 years and we like a cup of tea. No other country could produce a Grayson Perry. Or a Morrissey. And I don’t think we’d have heard of Leigh Bowery had he not moved to the UK.
– IM, Facebook

‘British art’ is not particularly mysterious. People on these islands have been making all sorts of things that we now call ‘art’ for a few thousand years. We can use the phrase ‘British art’ as a useful shorthand for all this stuff. Do all these things share anything in common – some inherent ‘Britishness’? No. To believe they do is certainly a fantasy – or better, a delusion. Is it a peculiarly British delusion? Err … Well, I’m not entirely sure what the question means but I think the answer is once again ‘No’. British people are certainly not unique among nations in their predilection for discerning a spurious, trans-historical, national ‘character’ within their endlessly diverse heritage.
– AP, Facebook

Yes, but then again Britishness is a British fantasy! We like to think that we can detect essential British characteristics in the paintings and sculptures which happen to be produced here- but I think of it as a ‘Birds of Britain’ question….. yes, there are plenty of sparrows in Britain, so sparrows are a very British bird, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get sparrows elswhere….
– Martin Myrone, Tate Curator

What do you think?

When you say it like this it sounds like popularity is bad. Is that bad, and if so why? There’s been this idea for a long time that art shouldn’t be the same as television and pop music. Those things are too easy to digest whereas art is meant to be difficult, because if it’s difficult it forces you to think. Art should make us think, but is there a danger that it becomes inaccessible? Can art be both accessible and challenging?
– AB, Facebook

It’s very true – and quite sad – that most people don’t have a favourite artist. Art has traditionally been more obscured than other media; it’s a far easier thing for an artist to be seen as a sellout by becoming popular/doing too many media appearances than an actor doing the same.
– HF, Facebook

Nope, never can be, never could be. I guess this question leads to the issue of ‘popular art’ as being lesser, inferior to, proper art, which needs to be restricted to a smaller audience. I think the real issue here is about hierarchy rather than numbers – I think there are false values which arise in association with established hierarchies.
– Martin Myrone, Tate Curator

What do you think?

I remember a version of this line being used by my history teacher backn in school – we need to learn about the past to understand the world of today… and yes, in a technical, academic sense this is true – the genesis of the values and ideas which shape our culture are a matter of historical investigation. But that is only one aspect of the way art can talk to the world of today; our own responses (what we like and don’t like) speak of today’s values, and I don’t think there’s any way around that. So thinking about the art of the past means keeping in play both these things – the historical record which the artwork is part of, which belongs to a bigger historical story which leads to today, and the way we respond to works themselves, and what that says about us.
– Martin Myrone, Tate Curator

I think a lot of modern artists can’t paint – they’d do well to take a few lessons from the old masters. Shouldn’t art involve skill as well as inspiration?
– EL, Facebook

I think the art of the past represents a time when things seemed simple, when we valued craft and skill differently, and when it was clear what artists are supposed to do. Our relationship to the art of the past is vital to our understanding of ourselves and because of this I would say that the art of the past not only speaks about the world of today, it is a vital part of it.
– AB, Facebook

What do you think?

Almost certainly not. There’s a false democracy which I suspect the present government is only going to push forward – which pretends that ‘everyone’ should have a say. Problem is, who feels like they have the right to speak? The big issue with museums and galleries is that not everyone feels comfortable going to them (and I speak from my own experience rather than a ‘museologist’ – the people who speak most on this matter and have the least to say). Think about the proposed ‘free schools’ – the idea that everyone can set up schools and shape them according to their own need sounds nice, but who are the people who have the economic and social confidence to get moving with a project like that… Toby Young, that’s who! Guess it’s a predictable answer from someone who gets paid for doing this, but I think that museums need a ‘professional class’ to manage them, and deliver stuff, but that this professional class need to be informed and aware and responsible, and that means politically self-conscious, about what we do. I’m not pretending that’s the case, though, at least from what I’ve seen…

– Martin Myrone, Tate Curator

Of course they should!

Not a casting vote, but certainly part of the decision process. Look at the fourth Plinth project that had public involvement. Refusal indicates possible elitism. The Art world when selecting public art needs the public on side just at the public needs the public Art working together to enhance and improve our towns, cities and countryside. Creating inspirational, visionary spaces such as Gormely’s ‘Another Place’. So it should be with the museum space.

– MO, Facebook

No, they shouldn’t. Contrary to the popular belief, love of art is not something one is born with, but something you earn as you get along. To have an opinion on something, one has to start by gaining knowledge and experience and with that a voice. First people need to be educated on how to look for beauty in art.

– AL, Facebook

What do you think?

We regularly fall back on the idea of art-as-therapy – the expectation that going to a gallery, seeing some pictures, participating in ‘culture’, is a good thing to do – morally good, almost therapeutically good.  I don’t get this, never have – it’s not that there isn’t pleasure to be had in going to see an exhibition or visit a gallery, far from it, there’s plenty to enjoy.  But the assumption that the experience is good for you, even health-giving,  I think is wrong – even dangerous.  It distracts us from what was really going on behind so many of the pictures which hang in our national galleries.  In the context of British art, it takes us away from the much more challenging, intersting, exciting stories about British culture and history – the questions that really, really, matter…

– Martin Myrone, Tate Curator

Not to pull a Bill Clinton, but it probably depends on the meaning of “good”.  I think the problem most people have with a lot of modern art is that it doesn’t seem to be saying anything at all, good or bad.

– EL, Facebook

Art must trigger emotions, creativity and reflection. These things learn us something about ourselves and the people around us, as well as society. So yes, art is good for you.

– KdV, Facebook

What do you think?