Is this Art?

NO, the "everything" goes is a tramp. Being an artist is just like any other proffesion, but not everything an "artist" does is "art". Do you say everything a doctor do is "medical science"? NO. It's the same with Arts.

I totally disagree. Being an artist isn't like any other profession really. This certainly is a work of art in my opinion. It was done with a purpose and an intent commissioned by the ICA. It would be a different story if these kids were just at a playground and you happened to be passing through while someone with nothing to do with it tried to coin it off as their "exhibition." The kids are within a confined space and for a specific reason. I personally love the idea of interaction as an art form. No one has a better imagination than a child. Aren't we all just fighting for that inner child?

Great post.

Consider that art for many people is not necessarily a 'thing,' an object but also a process. If you emphasise with this conception then dance, theatre, performance, graphic design, music, crafts, sculpture, cab reasonably be recognised as 'art.' Remember the argument about photography - is it art or not? Tate Modern in London only recently showed their first ever photography show. Video art has suffered the same ignoble response, as has the use of sound in art. How about crafts? Is making pottery or using ceramics art or just a craft? I'm happy when questions are asked. The ICA at least is presenting a position where you continue to question valid moments of reality. In Duchamp's words it's all about play!

Incidentally the artist who removed the walls at the ICA recently was Cerith Wyn-Evans! Quite a different artist than Rose Finn-Kelcey.

Good points & thanks for the correction Robin! (One should never post in the early hours)

Art is something you make, imagine and give to other. Here the artist show you that art is not only object-based but also as Robin Rimbaud said, a process. He had The idea to put you in a context. It's what was asked to the artist to offer to you. The process is important and then the action inside the performance: kids tell stories, imagine others things to do, tagging, walking, comes to you and make you face a situation you didn't expect. Art should surprise you somewhere. Art could be a moment, a connection, a link between you and and grown-up who ask you something, (it's sounds like an advertising, sorry) but you also have to be open-minded, to understand and want to discover that feeling of human interaction between generation gap, art takes you where you don't go easily open: emotion.

@Josh

exactly, it is a comission, the same kind of work an engineer gets. Therefore, an Artist is a Proffesional.

"WE pay YOU to do something"

Can a comission still be art? The Sixtine Chapel was a comission, and well, you know what kind of piece is the Sixtine Chapel .

Though the piece in discucion might be considered art, it is a lame performance. Remember the fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes? It's the same here. Just because someone says its ART doesn't mean its good, or that the piece is actually Art.

Just because someone says its not ART doesn't mean its bad, or that the piece isnt actually Art.

i like the regressive thing going on, slides in the tate modern etc... good to get back to thinking like a child sometimes. can give you a simpler view in complex sitiations.

This is art as it has an artist's intention, but it seems regressive for a contemporary show. I've been noticing a trend lately of "natural performances" becoming anomalous. It sounds like this show, like most performances, may have taken an unnatural identity. What I mean by this is simply that a strangers interaction with children doesn't tend to involve bursting into a child's actions, instead a more faithful set of mundane actions would reflect life more accurately. If an artist's intent is to turn a mirror toward life, it needs to practice subtleness and notice that life isn't always so vivacious. Of course the audience is most likely to blame for trying to make interactive art as exciting and odd as possible.

Regarding what is art, intention has to be art. If it is not, then art has no distinguishable identity and should remove itself from the label of art.

Rodrido:
Are you thereby saying artists like John Cage, Marcel DuChamp, Merce Cunningham, et al. are not artists? When Marcel Duchamp found his urinal and brought it to the gallery, are you insinuating that he was not producing art? Because the market disagrees with you; that urinal is worth thousands. Are you contesting the market?

Art is about faith. Where a majority of people have faith in the artist and/or artwork in succeeding. If it does not succeed, it is not art. The artist will have clear intentions to change someone, bring about an experience, or bring change - creative, or destructive.

Like Rand said above, just because you don't like it doesn't make it art. You can hate an art piece, just don't confuse your sentiments with your classifications.

correction: just because you don't like it, doesn't make it NOT art.

it provokes emotion, it inspires, it is creative, it is unique, it is appealing, it is expressive
therefore it is art

Recontextualisation is art's most significant philosophy.

y