Sky Sports subscription price to rise and What is Art?

Sports TV for Sky has been a one way bet for the last 20 years or so - subscribers have found it a great proposition and Sky've had the market largely to themselves, competition that has appeared (Think ITV Digital and Setanta) has been roundly scuppered until now.

Now! TV example of Sky TV's innovative offering  

The move to a more open market and the battle with BT Sports has changed the environment - with competition for rights the price for the attractive UK club games has soared and it seems Sky has had little luck finding cash down the back of the settee.

Already insiders have indicated that the prestigious  Atlantic channel might have to limit its acquisitions  and now  Sky TV has had to raise its prices (unexpectedly and hurriedly it seems)  in the UK and might be finding out what the economic elasticity of its sports package is in terms of price and those willing to pay it.

Sky has consistently innovated and driven change in the multi- channel world but as it becomes entrenched as an establishment behemoth  (nice word) can it prove fleet of foot and able to adapt - the market it seems may have some doubts.

What is Art?

As well as being curious why I should recall one of my early art lesson with school teacher  Tom Davies at Tabor County High School who proclaimed in a liberationist oration to an open mouthed class of teenagers that pretty much everything was 'Art' (including football - which was popular) I now find myself perplexed with the current orthodoxy that parrots this without any critical appreciation.

When I started at Secondary school our Art teacher Miss 'Gertty' Gunner  was something of a 'Dinosaur' (it seemed to me at the time) - I know that when I used a cartoon style image I was told that 'this sort of thing was not encouraged at this school'.

The School I was at had been subject to aspirations in how it taught, but it was becoming absorbed into the 'Comprehensive' system and a more open approach was being taken (albeit slowly).

A framed  print  of a photograph by James Randklev

Well at Philosophy class yesterday (you see I'm still aspirational) a conversation was had around Chaplin, Low- Art and (for me) the devaluing of ascribing Art to so much - I did see some people flinch when Norman Wisdom was added to the pantheon of 'Artists' but the post modern labelling of all entertainment and activity  as Art (I reckon) needs some thought and care- perhaps I'm being a snob (which is of course something few of us can totally convincingly deny).



I'm going to stick with something in the middle which ascribes Art to be works by Artists - allows a sort of Marcel Duchamp  definition to reign supreme.

A painting by my dad

Next month I'm planning to take a class in picture framing  (at Richmond Adult Community College) and will engage with the idea that framing/mounting makes something a work of Art- there was a rather good BBC Radio 4 documentary around framing recently too-  Thoughts?