Woman Resting by Clive James (read by Tom O'Bedlam)

It poses and attempts to answer the question, "What is Art?", by considering this one example, painted in about 1887. The answer may be, "It can't be defined, but there are certain qualities that we recognise when we see them." However that's never been true in the past. Art is whatever is the consensus of critics at any given time say that it is. What was once considered to be Art is now out-of-favour. What the public likes the most, the critic despises the most. It seems that popularity has nothing to do with Art, and that only a particular kind of person who has studied the subject can recognise it. There's some quotation about a painter seeing a dog displaying infinite grace in raising a hind leg. I must look it up and attribute the quotation to sound more authorative. Then there's the Art critic who said, "I know all about Art but I don't know what I like." Yes, I know what I said, don't tell me it's the wrong way round. Who wouldn't choose Mancini's woman over Manet's Olympia, if beauty were the sole criterion? Art is like Science in that it is depends on work that has been done before. There is some primitive art - Rousseau comes to mind - but most art is the output of a sophisticated skill that has been learned by studying other artists. Learning and copying isn't enough though, it is technical innovation that is the hallmark of genius. Antonio Mancini (1852-1930) was an Italian painter http://www.barnsiteartstudio.com/news/?p=310 "Olympia", about 1865, and "Boat, Argenteuill", about 1873, were painted by Edouard Manet. Olympia caused a great deal of anger from art critics when she first appeared. So she wasn't Art then, but she is now. No, that can't be right. http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/manet/olympia/