A known British art critic and philosopher Clive Bell left the exhibition accompanied by his American college, a distinguished modernist and scholar Clement Greenberg. A unilateral decision was immediately reached that both behemoths of art criticism were in desperate need of drinks. They set in a dimly lit pub with a row of mugs dissecting the table in half. After a generous amount of beer has been consumed by both men, Clive Bell cleared his throat and broke the silence:
- My dear friend, this is a perfect opportunity to show you a practical application of my Aesthetic Hypothesis. To have blunt copies of established archetypal works, elevated to a status of art is little more then a crude exercise in rhetoric. Granted, it is a peculiar concept, but it wouldn’t pass even as a descriptive piece of work. In fact, it is little more then a banal philosophical exercise. The only significant form is that which is left by the original artist and the lass is claiming authorship for a whiff of air.
Greenberg listened to the impromptu lecture with a mysterious smirk on his face and emptied another mug before replying:
-Ahh but she did get you, didn’t she? Was it not you who defined art as objects that promote emotions? True, the actuators aren’t exactly of the visual nature, but really all that entails in the narrowness of your original hypothesis. Personally, I find the idea quite rejuvenating, as the new avant-garde rising like the phoenix from the ashes of the kitsch! Look around, in this day and age; we are practically surrounded (much as I predicted) by the mass-produced and commodified art. The girl came up with something fresh; the new creation uber-naturalistic in it’s representation of the original and at the same time complete abstraction of its meaning.
The result of that legendary meeting is unknown, as the critics woke up with no recollection of what followed, and rather severe headaches.