<<< o >>>the photograph as contemporary art 51 comments + add yours

Update: chromasia's on hold for a couple of days as I have no new material to put up, the server's still knackered, I still have no ADSL and my wife is now ill with the bug that the kids and I had earlier in the week. So much for sticking to the image a day thing, but it's just not possible at the moment.

I've been reading The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton, and have a question for you ...

What makes a photograph worthy of consideration as a piece of contemporary art? Does it need to be a good photograph, whatever we might mean by 'good', or could it be that what we might otherwise consider to be a bad photograph becomes art when we come to understand the artistic context in which it was produced? I ask as there are a number of images that Charlotte uses to exemplify various categories of contemporary art that wouldn't exactly blow you away if you came across them on a photoblog, in fact, some of them I'd consider to be quite poor; in terms of both photographic technique and content and as exemplars of a particular artistic endeavour.

And I know, there's no answer, at least not one that we'll agree on, but it's something I'm trying to get straight in my own head so thought I'd mention it.

As for this shot <insert tongue in cheek> it's an acknowledgement of the graffiti artist's intention to i) highlight the demise of contemporary culture through the analogy of the multiple televisions washing down a drain, and ii) reference issues of globalisation and branding through presenting these icons of contemporary culture and its transmission as self-identical. Beyond this original intention though, this new piece recognises that such arguments are located within particular academic and artistic 'circles' and that mainstream culture will simply 'continue along it's way', stepping briskly across this zebra crossing, oblivious to the postmodern debates taking place in its midst. A key to the latter analysis is that this larger piece, this representation, draws attention to the original artist's failure to universalise these arguments beyond the narrow scope of artistic and intellectual debate – note how both the televisions and the drain are contained within one band of this crossing – while this piece shifts the horizon, relocating these arguments to the visual presentation of the context of that which the original work purportedly critiques. In other words, it steps 'outside the box' to provide an analysis of both the message and the structural milieu it inhabits, in this way reintroducing the notion that artistic critique is itself simply yet another artefact of postmodernism's ability to recuperate and reframe critique <remove tongue from cheek>.

Or not, ... take your pick ;-)

shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
10.30pm on 11/11/05
Canon 20D
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
aperture priority
C1 Pro
3x2 + graffiti
comment by kevin at 09:22 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

David, it's Monday (in the states), now's not the time to ask these questions :) I do like the photo though, and I'm curious--is this a bw shot? Very clever graffitist, if that's even a word.

comment by VelviaPix at 09:34 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I tend to believe the second hypothesis (that a bad photograph becomes art when we come to understand the artistic context in which it was produced), yet, we all know there are no rules. To me, it's more about the reaction. How we interpret varies, but the standard of what can be considered art, ultimately is what we tend to demand some sort of response to.
As for the "tongue in cheek" part... I see the psychologist in you speaking. Too much for me on a regular Monday morning.

This image does it much better for me. I see it, and instantly think of the idea of modern art, regardless of the title. I think this, as a photography communicates what the author of the piece wanted.
Your part in it, could have to do with the angle, the color (or lackthereof) and maybe even the description. When it reaches us, your audience, it is a collaborative work, which we cannot separate you from.

In other words... I Like it. :o)


comment by Brandon at 09:50 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I think photography or art is one of those things thats in the eye of the beholder. One may love it, another may hate it. In your case... you seem to be one of the most viewed photoblogs on the internet. I think that says a lot. I like the sharpness of this picture, and the nice whites and blacks.

I have a question too Do you know the rights of a photographer?

comment by Justus at 10:06 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

One thing I love about your photoblog is that it's not just some blog filled with postcard shots but it's not some stuffy online art museum either. It makes people think but not too hard, which is nice. I also appreciate your explanation of the artwork shown in this photograph. Your work always inspires me to push my photography further. It doesn't always improve but at least I'm trying.

comment by Phil at 10:12 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I really like this type of grafitti, like the Banksy stuff. It all has a wonderful message.

comment by Eric Kelley at 10:14 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I am new to your comment chain, but have been keeping up daily with your site since the beginning of the year.

This might not be exactly what you were asking for comments on, but there was somehting in what you said that compelled me to comment. I just got out of my photography class where we read an article from the NY Times on Ed Burtynski. So, go with me on it for a minute.

It has been interesting the last few days looking at your images and reading about what people's thoughts are on them.

You went to China and had some amazing shots, then went back home and had some very artistic (bad - in some people's eyes) shots that you wanted people to interpret the way they wanted.

I liked how you didn't give us a description about the horses right away, because that allowed us to get out of it what we wanted. I don't think enough people leave it out there with nothing said of the images. Too often people have to come up with something to say about the image to make it "work" or be "better."

I do not feel like the artist should have to talk very much about an image. I think the image should speak for itself and not demand explanation to make it good. If neccesary, later, you can talk about it and what you were trying to do, or tell a story about it.

I have seen a lot of bad art, having been in some intro art and photo classes and I don't think anything the artist could have said about the work could have justified it and made their creation any more worthy of my glance. Some things sre simply bad and should not be given any credit, regardless of the context and "words of wisdom" from the artist.

I appreciate this image and what it says about today's culture. Or rather what I think it might be saying. I do not know the artist, but I will give them infinite credit with it and believe that anything I can come up with about it was in their head when making it. If it wasn't then I won't take any credit for it, it will be all theirs.

Thank you for making a picture of this grafitti and sharing it with us through photography. I am sure many more people will feel the need to comment on this image because of the significance your comment has brought to the table.

If what I said makes no sense, then you can never listen to what I have to say again, BUT that is alright. I will just blame it on the fact that it is still Monday here. And yes, it has been a long one.

comment by Geoff at 10:14 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

To answer the question - What makes a photograph worthy of consideration as a piece of contemporary art? The curator. :)

As for the photograph, I like it. Well, in any case I like the grafitti. I'm not sure the photograph adds much to the grafitti though in this case. But it's a nice snappy graphic picture, and for that I like it.

Could there also be a comment on consumerism here, in that our western capitalistic model produces comsumer electronics that are of such a quality that we just wash them down the drain when we are finished with them... Or in a broader context, a jab at our wasteful, comsumeristic, polluting ways, in which our entertainment comes before the planet's long term health? Or as Roger Waters put it, "this species has amused itself to death".

comment by JD at 10:21 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

Nice shot, complements to both yourself and the graf artist.

I think the major question which springs to my mind is "what is art?" and once you know this you may be able to answer "What makes a photograph worthy of consideration as a piece of contemporary art? ".

The turner prize entry of "My Bed" by Tracy Emin in 1999, which caused much contravercy also raised the question of "what is art?"

Personnaly I think too much emphasis is placed on a piece being clever and how it can make you think about the subject or yourself.

I don't really know what art is and I don't feel I ever really will. But I understand that expressing opinions in different formats may be considered as a form of art whether it be dance, music, painting, photography or literature.

I think self expression is somewhere I would like to take my photography.

comment by Ed { tfk } at 10:32 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

Sometimes it's best not to delve into what is/isn't art, or what makes a great photo! How could there possibly be an ideally great photo? Equally, is every shot a great photo if it captures the essence of the moment...

Anyways, do a Google search on "The Philosophy Gym", it's got a great little write up on contemporary art with a direct reference to Tracy's bed.

As for this shot, well, I could go on... :p

comment by Brian at 11:16 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

Was this photo really taken at 1/80, f/8.0, ISO 200 at 10:30pm without flash, or is your camera still on Chinese time? :-)

comment by drdubosc at 11:33 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I can't think of a picture that is 'good' or 'bad' out of context, on its own, out of its time and place. You can never rate a picture without 'tuning in' first, most often by looking at the artist's body of work. If I made a perfect Mona Lisa tomorrow, it would be a bad painting. And that wouldn't be just because someone else did it first.

comment by photovilla@aol.com at 11:44 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

This is your best work yet, the best on the whole site, maybe even the entire 'net!

comment by nogger at 11:55 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

Green Lady or Sunflowers? Jack Vettriano or Edward Hopper?

comment by Chris at 11:57 PM (GMT) on 14 November, 2005

I think trying to define art is like asking Deep thought the meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything. Its not the answer that we are really after, but the question. We all view art in our own individual way.

A recent visit to the Tate Modern in London had me mesmerised by a black and white film (not exactly the type of art in question, but it demonstrates my point). I forget (sadly) the artist in question, but it featured the artist and friend standing motionless, staring at a view that was out of sight. On its own, it was pretty boring, but having read the blurb and discovered that about twice in the film (about 10-12mins from memory) one of the men took a drag on a cigarette. Suddenly, ignoring the tugging on the arm by my partner I ws transfixed by the video, watching the smallest of movements, and couldn't leave until I had seen that drag.

I think art is percieved individually as something that you can immerse in and associate yourself with. If you yourself are interested and can make something of what you are looking at, then it could be classed as art, but only by you and others like you. Others may, and probably will find it uninteresting/offensive or boring. Just look at the debates surrounding art prizes every year.
On the same trip to the Tate, there was an exhibit consisting of a Glass of water high up on a glass shelf. This was titled "An Oak Tree". The associated panel was a transcript of an interview with the artist who was justifying it by saying "it became one when I poured it, as i've now said it is and oak tree, thats what it became" - This is where 'art' fails me, as I don't believe things become art just because someone can talk rubbish about something.

Anyway, i've suprised myself my getting into this debate! Regarding this pic, I agree with Geoff, the art of the grafitti artist is good, with some interesting messages thought of above, but the photo doesnt add any new dimensions to it.

comment by Viking at 12:11 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Deep... Too deep for me to think about on a Monday night...

comment by jjs at 12:50 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

It's a pretty simple answer actually.

If you have to ask if it's art then it isn't

comment by peter cohen at 12:56 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

"Contemporary art" is art that was produced concurrent with the lifetime(s) of whomever is doing the considering.

Whether any artistic endeavor is "worth considering" is something that each individual decides. Curators are individuals too. (Except that they are all too often deciding what "art" to promote on the basis of what they can get paid for holding forth as "correct" and "interesting" and "worthwhile", rather than on the basis of what they individually actually may like or dislike.)

"Good" is a word that humans have invented to use as a more formidable-sounding version of the phrase "what I (or we) like"; a substitution they seem compelled to utilize whenever they do not have sufficient confidence in their own credibility/validity to use only the phrase "what I like" (which is quite often, as it turns out!). ["Bad" is of course the substitute phrase for "what I (or we) dislike".]

I like the photo in question. Guess that makes it "good". It is also "good contemporary art", being that I not only like it, but it was also produced during my lifetime.

comment by Daniel Pape at 01:38 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Wow David, you need to take a break from that book, maybe re-read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe in preparation for the new movie, and enjoy taking stellar shots. I went to art school and am a professional graphic designer and web designer so I know all about the artistic critique dribble out there and I just get tired of it.

In our souls people are creative. Everyone from the cowboy at home with a landscape painted on a rusty saw blade to the cosmopolitan with a Picasso on his wall, we are all creative and visual people. There can be endless debate on preference of style, but in the end who are we to sway one's opinion of style. Aside from the obvious techniques of good design principles which all practicing artists/photographers/designers should learn, most of our artistic pursuits are about self satisfaction anyway. If a few friends, strangers, and art critics along the way pause and enjoy our work then all the better.

Great post, and glad you are not passive about you art!

comment by Rob at 03:04 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Wow-this one does nothing for me. Not a bad photograph. It is sharp, nice contrast and well composed, so I can't say it is not a good photo - but just seems like a picture of nothing to me. Having reviewed most of the photos on your cite over the last year this is one of the first I did not particularly care for. Nothing wrong with it technically, but I guess the subject matter just does nothing for me personally (though many of your other photos have, and I admit a particular fondness for your portraits and Blackpool photos.). The previous grafitti didn't strike me as particularly interesting either, so I guess I am not a grafitti guy. I have read all the previous "what is art" discussions so I'll leave my 2 cents, by stating what is not art. A photograph of a Monet painting hanging in a museum is not art...and this strikes me kinda like that....but as to what is art...I'll leave that to folks wiser than me.

comment by Keith at 03:39 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Oh yeah. I love the art debate it is as easy to discuss as where does space end and if it ends what is beyond that. Do you need to know the rules of art before you can break them? Can only someone who has studied art put a single red stripe on a canvass and call it art or can I with no artisitic training put a similar red stripe on a canvas just becasue i think it looks nice, but as I have no reasoned argument based on art history and its development to justify why I did it does it qualify as art?

So the old put down of 'I dont know much about art but I know what I like' is actually a very sensible statement. I like taking blurred photos of trees. They look like paintings more than photos. Lots of people I have shown them to hate them because they are photos but not as they think of one. I like them because I consider them to be art. I like your image even though it contains anothers work you have placed it in different context and have possibly improved the original.

comment by chinna at 06:23 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

if a picture you take touches even one person - in a positive or negative way - i would say it has had an artistic effect.

comment by Leo at 09:42 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Interesting graffitti, you seem to have a incredible knack for finding interesting street art.

comment by Jennifer at 09:47 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

My simplistic view on ‘what is art’: If someone likes something enough to have on display in their own home – then it is art. However piles of bricks belong in builders yards and messy beds in teenagers rooms! Your work is always art IMO ;-)

comment by Colin Jago at 10:11 AM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

I recommend to you the writing of David Lee. He occasionally appears in UK photo magazines (he was in Ag last month) and writes about the visual arts in general in a newsletter called The Jackdaw. He will send you a sample copy if you go to:


(I have no affiliation - I pay for my copy. I just think that he has interesting things to say about this art question)

comment by Ioannis at 01:53 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005


It's so obvious you are an academic. I just graduated a few months ago and since then I have tried to see life in simpler terms.

What does it matter if a piece of art is contemporary or not, or even if it even is a piece of art? To me, what is important is to produce a pleasing result. And that is a broad enough definition to accommodate aesthetical pleasure, or an interesting story behind, or just my nuts brain liking something that is rubbish. Which is not a very academic way of defining and discussing art (or anything) but it's a simpler one.

Back to this shot, although your explanation is perhaps correct, here's another view. How about the idea of the stencil artist being a teenage boy having been brainwashed by his friends about why TV is so bad, and encouraged to go drawing this subject on pedestrian crossings? The artist, in this case, has no idea of the art they are creating, save for enough idea to encourage his motivation to do so. And probably has no idea of what the word contemporary even means.

Similarly, why did you take this shot? You probably noticed the subject and found it interesting. Then came up with the story in your mind as you were taking the shot. Whereas the analysis goes to the mind functions after you noticed the scene, I choose to just focus on the aesthetical interest in taking the shot and nothing else. By which definition your photograph and the stencil are both works of art.

Do you disagree with my view on life? Am I oversimplifying?

comment by pierre at 03:30 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

I like the picture and your commentary too

comment by Paul Courtney at 04:41 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Hi Dave,
Art, or not? Isn't that a bit like Schroedinger's cat? Art only becomes art when viewed by someone other than the creator. Good art or bad art is purely a matter of personal opinion, and as such is a subjective issue.
Take this shot of yours. When I first viewed it I thought that I was looking at the graffiti artist referring to the infiltration of the demon TV into our society, brainwashing us all. I saw that the tv sets were in fact issuing forth FROM the drain like orcs from Isengard to infect us all.
Now you tell me that they are actually going down the drain in some metaphor to highlight the demise of contemporary culture.
Well I never did. Silly me.

comment by prasoon at 08:05 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Nice macro Dave..

comment by Vijay at 08:08 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Interesting Photograph. And an even interesting question.

I took a minute to read the comments made before me and Eric Kelley, JD, Chris do bring my perpective across. Art doesn't require an explanation.

As Rob said, Art has a personal connection. Different things appeal to different people.

And as Chinna says it in very few words, Art has the capacity to influence.

Art is an expression. It's a form of communication just like words in the lips of a poet, or in the pen of a writer.

When something you create has the capacity to communicate with them, and help convey a perspective of yours, then that qualifies for art in my book. In time, everything follows a certain pattern and becomes the norm in the eyes, and the audience also come to expect such norms. Anything that breaks that norm and expresses itself in a different way becomes contemporary art.

Of course, there are lots of difference in opinions and different things appeal to different people. What gets accepted as "good art" is what finds the commonality to find an expression among the normal, wider audience. If it targets an eccentric group of people, it might be considered bad art. There is also art that is bad, just like there are bad books.

That's my thought on the matter.

comment by karasu at 09:14 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Bad photographs qualify as art in my opinion. Art is merely expression, not necessarily a masterpiece Being judged 'good' or 'bad' is secondary. I might even say totally besides the point.

comment by RustyJ at 11:44 PM (GMT) on 15 November, 2005

Whoa... What is 'Art'? Who is Art? Why is there air? It's Tuesday at the end of the work day and these questions are still too early in the week.

Great photo; great graffitti; great 'Art on both counts!


comment by djn1 at 09:51 AM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

Just a quick note to let you know that myself and most of our kids have had some sort of stomach bug over the last couple of days so I haven't been able to update chromasia. More soon ...

comment by Sharif at 01:49 PM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

Like this picture. Nice capture!

comment by Lex at 03:20 PM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

Excellent blog, makes a refreshing change from "Nice shot Dave" times twenty. Most of the salient points have been covered except perhaps one from classical philosophy:
"Anything in any way beautiful derives its beauty from itself and asks nothing beyond itself. Praise is no part of it, for nothing is made worse or better by praise." - Marcus Aurelius

Get well soon.

comment by Jason Wall at 05:55 PM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

Or not. ;)

I didn't recognize the drain as a drain til you pointed it out. I like your photograph. Its not a technically difficult shot, and as a photo it isn't particularly stunning. I like the image more for the work of the artist who incorporated the picture into the street walk. But that doesn't make this a bad photo, because in some way, isn't the photographer something of a capturer, and not as much a creator? We who use the photographic medium, as often as not, are manipulators of the point of view. I won't be didactic, as many photographers create the scenes they photograph, and as such occupy the role of creater and capturer, but much of photography is about capture and discovery and the accentuation of a point of view. I say all that to say that I think this image has value beyond the technical accomplishments.

That, and I like the idea of washing TV's down the drain. ;)

comment by Paul at 07:30 PM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

A canadian site that sells original works of art including original photographs.

comment by ralphs at 10:02 PM (GMT) on 16 November, 2005

the end of tv. ;)

comment by roy at 12:16 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

Like all good art should, your picture and comments got me thinking. Your wonderfully academic panegyric aside (how many similar essays have I read in the pages of art and photography journals...you captured the style perfectly), this picture reminded me - obliquely - of the work of Andy Goldsworthy, the English environmental sculptor.
The 'art' in your 'TV' picture is the work of the graffiti artist. You are merely recording it. But you can help or hinder the artist's original intention by your approach and execution of the photograph.
Because Goldsworthy's art is transient, he uses the photograph as "a form of documentation to capture the essence of (the) work". He further says: "Each work grows, stays, decays- integral parts of a cycle which the photograph shows at its height, marking the moment when the work is most alive. There is an intensity about a work at its peak that I hope is expressed in the image. Process and decay are implicit."
Hmmmm...not sure where I'm going here as it's getting late and my brain is shutting down, but I guess what I'm saying is that, for me, art makes me think - and also be aware of the artist's thought processes when they made the work.

In searching for a link to Goldsworthy I turned up this one, spookily entitled 'What is Art, What is an Artist?' - unfortunately it is rather brief and most of the links are dead.
Hope you all recover from your ailments soon - also that you are photographically documenting the experience of sickness .{tongue in cheek}

comment by Robert Walton at 12:25 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

It's simple, really. It's all art, in the eyes of the artist. And the artist probably doesn't care if you don't like it, or don't consider it art.

Anyone can be an artist -- you just have to say you are, and make art. That's the beauty of the title: it's ubiquitous, emphatic, important and meaningless. The minute you start looking to someone else to tell you that what you're doing is "art," you are really, really f'd.

comment by kevin at 03:42 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

Quick, someone get an ADSL line, some medicine, and a nice shiny server out to David, I need my daily dose of Chromasia.

comment by Russ Morris at 05:25 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

I like Mr. Natural's view on life - and I think it applies to Art, as well.

I make Art for me. I don't ask for permission to make it. I don't ask for opinion about it. I don't insist that anyone likes what I make. I just make it. If someome else sees it and gets anything out of it, good for them. If not, so what?

It doesn't get any more complicated than that.

comment by chinna at 06:11 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

just looking at what's happenning here, it struck me that art can be a chain reaction - the grafiti artist left an impression ( the graphic looks copied from a typical clip-art source so you can even take it one step back), you reframed it with a photogaph+comment, the reactions on this site are taking it somewhere else . . . ok you cannot auction it for a million bucks someday but for a while it had a life of its own - beyond the original creators!

comment by Geoff at 07:46 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

Kevin, I hear you.

Dave, unless you are dying, please make haste and post a new image. You have a demanding public waiting!! :)

comment by Ben at 07:48 AM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

Dave - you and your deep and meaningful questions, I love them!!

Art - "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium" Dictionary.com definition.

I like the idea of something that affects the viewers senses, something a photograph can do just as well as any other medium in my opinion.

The shot works for me, it has a gritty feel to it.

comment by buda at 07:38 PM (GMT) on 17 November, 2005

Wow! I just love this one!
So pop,So cool, so intense and so full of meaning.A great shot!

comment by Kevin at 05:13 AM (GMT) on 18 November, 2005

Yeah for real...did DJN get hit by a car shortly after taking this picture?

comment by Skauce at 05:29 AM (GMT) on 18 November, 2005

It bothers me slightly that people are giving you credit for this image - when really you just documented a flat surface.
and ok - I'm just going to say something about art that is as real as it gets, and if all other artists refuse to believe or come to terms with reality, that's their problem:

Art isn't complicated. You make something that looks pretty, people will say "that's pretty" and possibly buy it. You make something controversial, people will say, "ooh, controversial" and not buy it. You create something political, people will let it change their mind mabe, or it will infuriate them. That's it. Art is what it is. There's nothing deep about art - at least that hasn't become common knowledge by now. A painting of a woman is a painting of a woman. This photograph is a photograph of a drawing of t.v.s going down the drain. And if you disagree with this, fine. But you know what? You're wasting time trying to figure that deep stuff out, when you should be trying to use what we know and create something good out of it. We know a drawing of Jesus being shot by a child will make people angry - if that's the reaction you want for something, go paint it. A painting of a flower will bore people - want that? Do it. We know what will come of every piece. So there's no questions to ask about art. Maybe there's a question worth asking in WHY you want that reaction, but when it comes down to the art, it's very straightforward. Imagery is simple.

comment by jackson at 05:03 PM (GMT) on 18 November, 2005

very creative i like this shot.
I enjoy the dart board center and how its burned in. The exposure is almost pur white pure black, very nice composition.

comment by John B at 09:37 PM (GMT) on 18 November, 2005

It seems to me that in order to get a fellowship in the Royal Photographic Society all you need to do is submit a portfolio of images (like this one) and back it up with a load of waffle and hey presto, you pass and get your FRPS. Art is what ever you want it to be and if you are very good at explaining to a panel of judges what's going on inside your head (+ a bit of bull), you cannot go wrong. You only have to look at what gets nominated for the turner prize. I'm not saying this is a bad image, but its not good either. The credit at the end of the day has to go to the street artist.

comment by djn1 at 11:00 PM (GMT) on 18 November, 2005

Thanks everyone, I'll pick up the points from your comments over the next few days/weeks.

comment by Håvard at 03:21 AM (GMT) on 1 February, 2006

I like the idea. Well done!

Nice blog you got her by the way. :)

Håvard, Norway