ww.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/may/20/faking-fortune-damien-hirst-paintings-art-florida-pastor-jailed

A Florida pastor bought a Damien Hirst painting (quite, quite talentless), but found out that it was a fake, so he decided to resell it. He was charged in court for selling a fake as genuine while knowing perfectly well that it was a fake.... and he was sent to jail.

Who is most at fault, Damien Hirst for selling his rubbish at high prices (good for him, I say!), the pastor for selling a fake knowing it was a fake, or the art world for the monstrous con trick it has been foisting on the public for many years?

I say it's time for the rest of us to reject this monstrous imposition. Throw out Damien Hirst's half sheep; laugh to scorn the room with an off-centre light which one the Turner Prize.

And maybe, just maybe, we should also reject Picasso?

I hate his stuff, how the heck is what he does called art? However, the pastor was gullible enough to buy it, and then trying to sell a known fake was dead wrong. He deserves what he gets. IMHO.

But the real question is "What is Art?" surely?

I certainly prefer the old-fashioned 'representational' art - where a portrait looks like the model, a landscape can be recognised as a particular scene, where Turner's 'Fighting Temeraire' looks like an impressive sailing ship coming through the mist and smoke, even if it never looked exactly like that.

But, taking that last example, where should the artist's imagination stop?

Again - my personal preferences - I would rather buy a painting hung on the fences of Hyde Park on a Sunday afternoon for a tenner, if I liked the subject matter and the way the artist had treated it (which means I could understand the subject and treatment) than pay out thousands for a painting buy an 'in-vogue' artist where I may make thousands more if I sold it. I want art that I enjoy, that I can hang on my wall and be happy to see it there years later.

Before my divorce I had good reproductions of popular paintings on my walls, as well as photographs of scorpions and other insects, photos of Qashqai tribal people when in the desert, paintings of ancient heroes of Persian times on Ivory, framed in Persian decorated surrounds and so on.

Now all I have are Indonesian puppets from Wayang and other puppet shows.

But this is what I like. What is on your walls?

(And if the guy knew it was a fake he was selling, then he should sell it as a fake. Otherwise a jail cell awaits)

Edit: spelling.

I have a 4 piece laquer (I think) picture, I bought it for 500 Baht 20 year ago.from the ex's brother. He said he bought it in Cambodia.

What is on my walls/ Well, in front of me as I write are

a photo taken by me of my first Alsatian

an 18th century Japanese woodblock print

a Chinese scroll painting of butterflies which claims to be early Ming but isn't

a Rajasthan miniature painting, probably 19th century

a drawing of Bald Eagles at the nest copied by a late boyfriend of mine

Nice and eclectic!

Yes, I'm all in favour of going for what you like. Most of us probably don't have a lot of money to spend on wall decorations, though.

I think what I was really getting at was the way in which taste in art seems to be controlled by the critics. Large sums are paid for things which you and I, HB, wouldn't have as a gift.... and more important, that price is being paid not because the buyer likes the thing but because some critic says it is good (and will appreciate in value). (Correction: I would have them as a gift because I could resell them for large sums, hopefully without going to jail)

I was refreshed by the Guardian article saying that Damien Hirst's works are rubbish, because that's what I've always thought... and because few critics dare criticise something which has become popular or in some way recognised (the Turner Prize). I think we, the public who go to art galleries, are being taken for a ride, and should be more aggressive to say so.