The was, about 8 years ago, in the UK, a TV series called "art Marathon" in which a group of people from a Northern England city who had no connection with the "Art world" were asked to spend several months and several hundred thousand pounds to travel around the UK and curate an exhibition of the work that moved them most, for a show in Newcastle. The curators were drawn from a range of walks of life in much the way that a UK jury might be selected.

It was fascinating to see what they decided upon; there was a pattern that became established, where the consensus changed radically over a piece of work from: "we don't understand nor like this work" to "we love it". The catalyst in every case was meeting the artist and talking to them about their references, inspirations and intentions.

I'm sorry I've had a go at searching for any reference to the programme, and have come up blank. It's possible (but deeply imaginative of me) that I invented the whole thing.

It's amazing to me how the depth of appreciation of a work of art has so many layers, from the initial intuitive reaction all the way through to a lifetime of study.

I want to know why no-one has asked "what is so Wonderful about ..."

On that subject, have you seen/heard this?

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/241

wonderful indeed!

Phew, I've just read all the posts; a surprisingly well-reasoned debate on both sides (trolls aside) for what is clearly an emotive issue.

It's funny how the most emotive issues are the ones that are so much bigger than ourselves that we can only ever see the edges of them.

Here's a thought:
Say the climate is changing in such a way that this little planet will support less human life comfortably within a generation or two.

Say there might be reason to suspect that some of the more extreme aspects of our behaviour may be contributing factors in this change.

Wouldn't it still be sensible to pour the millions of dollars we seem keen to spend to "fix" the problem into raising the living standard of the poorest people on this planet through education and healthcare, so that, as a (within a generation or two) result, there will be fewer people living in the kind of marginalised squalor that climate change is predicted to hurt most?

By all means step more lightly on this planet, it's the rational thing to do anyway, but when it comes to Big Fixes, we do seem a little keen to ignore the fact that the bigger part of the human population are still poor, short-lived and that their survival issues, determination to have what we take for granted, and population growth will make a mockery of our efforts to live sustainably.

I was intrigued by the headline: there I was, expecting to see some pictures of a small, unloved, wooden table mat...

@25: so not as off-topic as you suggest; the difference between our definitions of natural and man-made is the difference between organic and non-organic agriculture.

A grower may choose to raise plants with fertilisers that are one step away from their original sources, such as compost, or to remove weeds with pine based oils. These would qualify them as organic producers. Alternatively, they may choose to use what we have defined as chemical fertilisers and pesticides. They would then be non-organic.

Whether one system is better that the other, or even just a subset of the other is debatable, but I'm not surprised that so many conglomerates choose to encompass as many methods of production as they do; it broadens the customer base, gives them more flexibility when market demands change: that's what their shareholders want isn't it?

I merely meant that the image, production methods and emotional ties that we might have to our favourite brands might be more illusory than we like.

But it's entirely natural that we see them as very different; that's marketing for you.

@12: On the other hand, maybe we are natural and always will be?

Just because our nature is self destructive, viral and unethical in its overall effect, does not remove us from nature. The more we become the catalyst for change on this little planet, the more our DNA must be delighted.

The forbidden fruit we have eaten merely blinds us of the ability to see the long-term view. We hold ourselves in high esteem whilst entirely missing the fact that we are part of a process.

Of course, comments like this do nothing to help our immediate issues. It's my hubris too.

Takuan, you're absolutely correct.

Orwell and others saw this coming; the easiest way to keep everyone under firm control is to ensure that there is a constant, imaginary enemy who can never be defeated.

Sadly, Orwell offers no clue as to how this sorry state may be averted.

I think you may be in for a generation or two of paranoia.

(And it's not just Eusa.)