"not proper art"

Brits have trouble recognising much American and Australian British art, specially in film and visual, um, art.

Brits have trouble recognising much American and Australian art

Huh?

Continental European are sniffy about British art, and no doubt are prejudiced against eachother in multiple ways. Tuomas?

To be honest, I've never noticed that the ountry of origin was ever the reason to say something isn't "proper art". Except maybe with Hollywood movies, but even then it's restricted to the "Hollywood" tag (which doesn't even cover all the big studio movies, just the most popcorny ones), American art house directors are like Jarmusch are still much respected here.

Of course you guys love Jarmusch, he did that whole bit about Helsinki.

Uhhh? I would say American artists like Jeff Koons and Mike Kelley have had a massive influence on British art in the last twenty years. (Whether you like that influence or not)

This is a phenomenon with certain instances, it's not universal to the groups mentioned.

What examples have you noticed of this?

http://metropolis.co.jp/xmg/498/Thunderpants.jpg

What I DIED says, can you sum up some specifics? If there is this 'not proper art' feeling towards art from, say Britain (I'm Dutch), I haven't noticed it, ever. I don't think something being art or not is determined by it's geographical origin. Maybe it's harder for 'us' to understand art from, say Papua New Guinea, then from Europe, but it doesn't make it less art.

"I don't think something being art or not is determined by it's geographical origin."

Well no!

If i'm the only one who thinks this is a thing, then fair enough, but a couple of things from off the top of my head: Anglo muic fans sniggering over the idea that Europeans could produce decent pop music, bar the odd success like Air and Daft Punk and Kraftwerk breaking through; it was a good few years into the twentieth century before the classical-music establishment in mittel-europe accepted that British composers could write anything worth hearing.

(when you consider how integral music was to british life at the time and previously, wagner's "das land ohne musik" comment kind of sums up the absurd attitude some had in that respect)

I don't know if you're alone on this, I'm just trying to understand.
For every Daft Punk and Air there's surely an Abba or Jacques Brel or whatever. I can't imagine they haven't been recognized in Britain when they were at their height. Then again, I'm no Brit. And also then again, Wagner is Wagner. He didn't prescribe the opinion of the cultural elite. It just seems like a bold statement to me. Some critics of the past may fit your theory, but there's loads of others that don't.

I think some critics - whoever and wherever they are - will always deem something as 'not proper art'. In all European countries Damien Hirst's diamond bling bling skull has been critisized as not being art. But in all those countries there where others who stood up and said it was. I think it's a universal (dis)agreement, not a local one.

Of the upcoming shows listed for the Tate Modern, there are two American artists, one French artist, one Brazillian artist, and a group show where only one of the eight artists is British.

Seven of the top ten songs on the current BBC charts are by Americans or Australians.

The weekend before last the UK top 10 box office had eight American films and no British ones.

Otherwise, good thesis.