Maybe it is a old question, I don’t know. Maybe it has something to do with the topic of my essay, I thought this question again when I saw Martin Creed’s work.
His submission for the Turner Prize show at the Tate Gallery was Work No. 227: The lights going on and off. The work was an empty room in which the lights switched on and off at 5-second intervals.
I read the news about his work: His work has often excited controversy: a visitor threw eggs at the walls of Creed’s empty room as a protest against the prize, declaring that Creed’s presentations were not real art and that “painting is in danger of becoming an extinct skill in this country”. And artist Maurizio Cattelan, in 2004, thought Work No. 227 ‘looked like a mood swing’ with its ‘ability to compress happiness and anxiety within one single gesture. Lights go on, lights go off – sunshine and rain, and then back to beginning to repeat endlessly.’
About Martin Creed’s own idea, he said “I do not want to play the neon sign, nor do I want to make a visually cool piece of art or relate it to politics and society. I just want to find myself in my work and find where I live in the world.”
So three different opinions from three different identities. of course we need art, but do we need artworks? sometimes, maybe people just need a artwork to announce their own purposes, It does not matter which piece of work it is, is that right?