Unbelievable!

Well, if you call mystified amusement emotion, then yes.

Yep, that counts

It was advertising, not art.

advertising can be art, though - Warhol Campbell's Soup Can as an obvious example

Only as a by-product. The purpose of advertising is strictly financial.

Not necessarily.

Either way, art and advertising are not mutually exclusive

No, but we were talking about purpose earlier. Advertising might use art to get your money, but it isn't art in and of itself.

Why can't it be?

Because, as I said, that's not its purpose. The purpose of advertising is to direct your money towards whatever is being advertised. It can, and does, use art to help it do that. But in those cases, the art stands as art, the advertising is just advertising.

Advertising is not just about getting money. The purpose of art is not just to gain aesthetic appreciation.

The purpose of both is to garner interest, engagement and opinion.

Advertising can use art and can be, in itself, an art form - much as art can be used in advertising.

This exhibition in the Hayward is not primarily an advertisement, it's an art installation, although its controversial nature will, no doubt, garner publicity for the gallery - so, in that respect, it is also advertising.

Personaly, I like to see a bit of hard grafting in anything 'arty farty'.
This is just 'farty'...

Although not an artist myself, I appreciate art and very much so.
My daughter is a brilliant artist for her age (16) and when I see how hard she works at it, I find this kind of stunts insulting to people like her.
I'm all for raising awareness to keep the flame going, because let's face it, art today is not as valued as it should be but I find this stunt particularly lazylame. That's just my opinion.
Naff off with your blank canvas, I can get me some from Argos for just £9.99!

My daughter might kill me for sharing this but I'm a proud maman!
Final piece art exam 2012- property of C. Haurie. Self portrait- Life and death.

My son too is a brilliant artist and, as with Fwenchie’s comment, works bloody hard at it. He struggles to make decent money from it and was once told, it’s the name of the artist that sells a picture!

Then you come across this crap! Art? Rubbish! Anyone who pays good money to look at a blank canvas wants’ their bumps felt in my opinion. This is just taking the piss and proves that it is indeed the name that will sell the image (or lack of one). And that those who have already made their name in the art world are now just taking it for granted that they can sell any old tat. This is a disgrace and an insult to all budding hard working artists, the public in general and the art world which seems to have taken a dive for the worst.

It's one installation in one gallery - it's hardly the death dive of the art world!

Still, I'm sure the curator of the Hayward will be delighted about the controversy it's courted.

So, do you view the 'installation' as art, Fells and would you pay to go in? Would you pay to buy one?

No, it's not, Fells, but it is stunts like these that make a mockery of true art. If we want to have a moan about it, we can bloody well do so.
The 'artist' may well have done himself and the gallery a massive favour, but I don't think it's done true art any justice at all!

I don't care much for agent provocateurs and pretentious tw4ts anyway!

I see it as art - but not to my personal taste.

Contemporary art is as diverse as the culture that makes up the list of contemporary artists. Some of it I admire from purely aesthetic reasons, some of it I admire for more philosophical reasons - a lot of it I cannot connect with in any way. Much in the same way I have varying opinions of modern art, impressionist or any of the other art movements.

Its good that people strongly dislike certain art - its as important as people strongly liking certain art. Its when people have no opinion - when art fails to ignite strong opinion that signifies failure.

Art is as much about the thought process as it is about the technical process. Some art does all the thinking for you, other art, conversely, asks you to do all the thinking.

No, it's not, Fells, but it is stunts like these that make a mockery of true art. If we want to have a moan about it, we can bloody well do so.
The 'artist' may well have done himself and the gallery a massive favour, but I don't think it's done true art any justice at all!

I don't care much for agent provocateurs and pretentious tw4ts anyway!

What is the definition of 'true art' as defined by whom?

Fail then. Bemusement isn't strong emotion. I just think the whole thing is daft.

Fail then. Bemusement isn't strong emotion. I just think the whole thing is daft.

Yet you were moved enough to create a thread about it. That's hardly apathetic.