While no great art lover, I have always felt her work is a case of "emporers new clothes", everyone is afraid to point out most of her so called "art" is a load of crap (literally sometimes).
She is the classic example of how gullible people are in the art world.
As an example, a year or so back I went to the Tate Modern in London.
In one small gallery they had the decorators in, with trestle tables, paint pots, paint brushes, left over sandwiches, ash trays and other stuff decorators leave lying around.
Then I saw a steward sitting in the corner, and realised that in fact the decorators layout I had seen lying around WAS THE ART ITSELF.
What made this "art" any more than going into a room where REAL decorators WERE in, or was it purely because the people who put it together were "artists" so it made it art.
I remember a phone-in on the radio a few years ago discussing "modern art" and they had an expert in the studio talking about it.
A person phoned in and said much "modern art" was a con, and the caller said suppose he piled up 40 bricks into a pile and called it art, would it be art.
And the expert in the studio said to the caller "No, because you are not an artist" and I thought that just sums it up.
So if Damien Hurst cut a sheep in half it is art, if the butcher down the road cuts a sheep in half it is not.
How ridiculous. Art should be a REAL talent that makes that person stand out from the rest of us, not just someone who calls themselves an "artiist".
Being able to create this statue below is what being an artist is all about, as most of us could not do it, not just putting your bed in an art gallery and calling it "art"
http://www.digital-im...eta_StPeters_7772.jpg