Noun. Pièce de Résistance - the outstanding item (the prize piece or main exhibit) in a collection,
collector's item, showpiece,
curio, curiosity, oddment, peculiarity, rarity, oddity - something unusual -- perhaps worthy of collecting rariora - (plural) rare collector's items, expertise, artistry, savoir faire.
Local artist Andre Wallace created "The Whisper", initially as a maquette, featuring two girls sitting on a railing. It was fully commissioned by Sainsbury's and exhibited at the Royal Academy in London. There it was spotted by Milton Keynes Development Corporation which commissioned the sculpture in bronze for a prime site outside the town's library. Now it is returning to Taunton where the inspiration for the piece was born - and it would be perfect if the models could be traced. Andre said the idea for The Whisper was developed from observing how people interacted in the town centre and formed one of a number of works that depict people from all walks of life going about their daily business.
Students at Central St Martin's are revolting as they often did way back in the sixties. Their present beef is financial, although to read their online demands they are using the opportunity to make some odd requests.Remember long ago when a sit-in was taken down by an art school principle who had not long before survived a Japanese prisoner of war camp, he did not take any prisoners, everything collapsed. Amused by these vague complaints:
Implement anonymous marking – Mark our work, not our names! FREE EDUCATION
- Take a stand against tuition fees, cuts and student debt
- Abolish materials and printing costs
- No to privitisation
- Affordable accomodation
- WE’RE AN ART SCHOOL, NOT A BUSINESS!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST
- No sanctions or punishments for students & staff involved in this peaceful occupation
- Freedom to move in and out of the occupation"
Their protest might have carried more weight if they had learned to spell. Anonymous marking, now that really is revolutionary. How will that one work when they are practising as "anonymous" artists and designers? The bitter truth is that there are far, far too many artists out there trying to scrape a crust as it is, but that doesn't mean to say that the creative industries don't need workers because they really do. It is also about time these industries started actually paying their way and providing decent salaries, so we can vaguely hope that the revolution starts here. Time to take up the cudgels in defence of basic rights. Too much exploitation of artists and unpaid internships for way too long. If you are thinking of taking on one one, carefully consider the fact that only 7% of unpaid internships lead to an actual job. We are perfectly entitled to hate and despise promotors of industrial slavery (to call it what it actually is) and that indeed is exactly what it is exploitation.
Which brings us to Turner prize artist Marvin Gaye Chetwind who has found a new street-wise and relevant moral and ethical role designing playgrounds for children. She has started in Dagenham, which was once a byword for inner city deprivation. Only now, it has good well performing schools and it is the poor white children in UK rural locations who are the deprived sector.
She says: “In Britain, artists are often thought of as tricksters or p--- artists – and certainly not as useful. But in Europe, they are really respected, and that’s great. I think of this project as art that has come out of the studio. It’s not elitist, it’s on the street, it’s art being functional – and that’s amazing.”
Well yes, it is very good to be useful but doesn't that mean that it is really design rather than fine art, because it is actually functional and useful.
This week there has been very little art apart from the Goya and Impressionism exhibitions. There is the Richard Diebenkorn exhibition at the RA though which Laura Cummings has reviewed in the Observer. She writes accurately this tribute; "This is what connects late with early; all of these paintings are bent on seeing and depicting the same thing – cities and landscapes – in new ways. The elements may be the same, the architecture of lines and planes, the suave black drawing, the patches, clusters and veils of atmospheric colour. But the sense of endeavour, of tension, scrutiny and indecision changes every time and makes each painting vital and restless for all its composure. Even at the end, Diebenkorn is still trying to work out another way to give us the light and space of California." Diebenkorn is a grand old man of american painting and along with Wayne Thiebaud both of whom have grown in stature since the 1950's. Their work will survive long after most of the rest of today's dross has been washed away because their art is rooted like Picasso's in the real world. It depicts real perceptual life phenomena. Diebenkorn has produced some of the best late twentieth century life drawings in existence. Highly recommended if you want to see some real art. Adrian Searle writes: "Diebenkorn’s Ocean Park paintings occupy a sort of hinterland. They’re a beautiful distraction, paintings to lose your way inside. They’re not quite landscapes, not geometric abstractions and not exactly colour-field painting either. They belong to a time and place but have in them times and places all their own. They’re accumulations of incident within a larger scheme of things. You can see Diebenkorn thinking as he paints, getting lost, turning back, wandering off into the fields, finding the larger view."
Down in devon Damien Hirst has run short of photo realist painters so if you are an artist and fancy moving to Devon apply to extend brand production. Hirst is a publicity junky so there is this story concerning an original spot painting whose sale has been blocked by him. "Jess Simpson, who has owned the home with her husband Roger since 2005, has removed Bombay Mix, mounted it on an aluminium backing board, and framed it in the hopes of selling it. In doing so, she has run into firm opposition from the artist and his team."
Then there is the great Impressionism blockbuster that is drawing all the crowds at present at the National gallery. This has been extensively reviewed by everyone and is a bit boringly passe. Strictly for the newly converted to art as a religion types. Dorment tells us it's fantastic here.
The BBC held an arts question time in response to the Warwick report on the state of our culture. It was a very disappointing program full of time serving self promotion and a total failure to expose the truth as is usual with TV. The Telegraph couldn't resist using it for a poke at the arts and published an article by one Rupert Christiansen with the worst piece of unconsidered dross copy I have read this year.
Particularly this unconsidered pig ignorance :"And what about the role of "the arts" in schools? Should we really be so fervently encouraging young people to be "creative", when standards of literacy and numeracy are so low? Shouldn’t schools be more focused on priding children with useful practical skills, such as speaking foreign languages or understanding the legal system? Our universities spend billions of pounds half-educating people in "the arts", when society has far more urgent calls for manufacturing and industrial skills: aren't "the arts" ultimately enfeebling us as much as enriching us?"
It isn't worth arguing with a clown who doesn't know what a useful practical skill is, never mind the accusation of half educated arts graduates....... Or one who isn't aware that high achievement in the arts leads to improvements in basic subjects such as maths and english. As for the UK's industrial and manufacturing skills, the comment is risible. The copywriter for that is all he is, doesn't realise that 85% of his readers have no economic access to the precious legal system. He is the one who is half educated, and he should know that his Tory political masters allowed our industries and manufacturing to go off to China. (Which is now building, 230 art colleges)
Mary Moore daughter of the great sculptor has taken exception to Damien Hirst for putting art back 100 years. " The issue with the work of Hirst and others was that it relied on title and the cube it was in, she said. It was much more about having to read the label to know what was going on."
She is quite correct to make this criticism, lack of considered formal values and sculptural considerations is the main hallmark of avant garde lite. She argues that Hirst brought back the frame after her father had dispensed with it. This is a purely formal issue, anyone who has studied sculpture knows that the object - whatever it is, has to work in the round, that it has to be seen from all points of view - which is exactly why Michaelangelo said that painting was women's work. Hirst presents natural and manufactured objects usually in a rectangular box or frame. It can be simply understood from one 90 degree angle it's symmetry and it's label.
Moving on there has been much discussion by our erstwhile critics of the Victorian sculpture show at Tate Britian. Laura Cumming writes this which is incomprehensible:"Yet Tate Britain’s claim that this is “a golden age for sculpture” is itself outlandish. It might be a golden age for commissions, and popularity, but the art itself is wildly variable." When was it not in any situation one might ask? There are real skills on display here and not a little real art. You have to be able to see it!
The Spectator has a pop at Penelope Curtis which seems to be a common press pursuit these days (google it!). The real culprit is Sir Nicholas but the conceptually addled Richard Dorment couldn't resist putting the boot into the Victorian sculpture exhibition. The poor dear has only just at the tender age of sixty nine, it seems, woken up to the fact that art history and art criticism as forms of knowledge are contingent upon the reason for their production, no more no less. Which says much for his capacity for reflection upon his own writing. He writes this in genuine anger: "I couldn’t care less when they to publish their low-grade, pseudo-historical twaddle in periodicals no one reads. But to see it in a catalogue published by a respected institution like Tate is depressing, because it will now be repeated over and over until it becomes the accepted view of Victorian sculpture." He really should get out more. Since when has that not always been the case? Reminds me of the paper I wrote on the hatchet job Sir John Rothenstein (former director of Tate Britain) did on Sir William Orpen. If you want to read that, it is on the Jackdaw website.
The fourth plinth is in the news again, this time due to a skeletal horse by Hans Haake. A stock market ticker tape runs around the horses neck, so we are informed that the whole thing is a critique of rampant capitalism as in the 2008 banking crash. Haake has some form for this sort of political comment, but one can and one is entitled to ask would the symbolism work without the conceptual description to tell us that he is having a go at the city? How and why does a horse's skeleton symbolise the city of London and the banking crash? The answer is this: "Asked whether his piece was a criticism of the power of money, Haacke said: “The title is Gift Horse and that implies that something is off…"
Waldemar Januszczak - Sunday Times 22.2.2015 writes an article entitled The state we are in concerning the "History is now", show at the Hayward which purports to be a selection of meaningful art for consideration vis the election. 1970's and 1980's stuff mainly and no, do not see the connection?
Seven artists have been asked to curate the exhibition and with one exception they are state art acolytes. The exception is Richard Hamilton's 1980's canvases of the Northern Ireland troubles and Januszczak says the show starts well and finishes well but the middle is very poor. "Confused and confusing" there are some artists here who don't work with the exhibition brief, Roger Hiorns, Hannah Sarkey and John Akomfra for instance.The tenor of his criticism is also poor, state art hype to the front he remarks that: "the sight of the redundant bloodhound missile on the forecourt made for a thrilling sculptural sight" which is the usual. No missile can be a work of art and only a conceptually biassed critic would confuse the two. What one is entitled to ask; is life enhancing or positive about a guided missile whose sole function is to kill? Mind you the Tate did it first with Fiona Banner not long ago. Richard Wentworth's missile, is a quaint piece of non meaning, it is certainly not a sculpture, you far are better off going to the Hendon aircraft museum or Duxford, and UK people are doing exactly that as the Tate's attendance figures have recently proved. People do not want to see this stuff.
Our lad Alistaire Sooke likes it as a statement because it is pointed at the city? but he says he is exhausted by this exhibition.
He writes this bunk: "Moreover, Wentworth is unafraid of visual drama: outside on a balcony, he positions one of the few surviving Bloodhound surface-to-air guided missiles deployed by the RAF during the Cold War. (It appears to be aimed in the general direction of the City.) If only the weaker, impenetrable parts of this exhibition had been more like his one." Which only goes to prove that he was not around in the cold war...... He also pens this piece of brown nosed name dropping: "Ileft in a cloud of unknowing, defeated by the cacophony of so many competing voices, but sympathetic towards officials such as John Chilcot, who have to sift masses of evidence like this while chairing inquiries in order to compile their findings. No wonder it takes them so long."
The Standard has lost the plot as it seems to no longer employ the feisty Brian Sewell and someone called Ben Luke pens this hype : " - there’s Sam Taylor-Johnson’s celebrity-tastic, feelgood film of David Beckham sleeping, for instance. Fujiwara’s might be the most contemporary section but everything here feels pertinent to now in its own way. It’s a portrait of Britain as a deeply complicated, often inspired and sometimes infuriating place.
It leaves us with much to ponder about our past and present as we head for the voting booths in May." Oh yes does it then, like how we got into this degenerate state? State art as a critical comment on the status quo - how does that scan? One can only say that Brian would have made justifiable mincemeat of this.
I realise that you are often in receipt of open letters. I am posting this one out of a genuine concern for the area of knowledge in which I have spent a career and life, i.e. art. I note that yesterday the BBC analysed the recent Dept of Culture attendance figures for all major galleries. They have been at pains to point out that recent increases in attendance at these have been largely made up of overseas visitors and that UK visitors have fallen by 20% since 2008/9.
The Tate has specifically lost around a million domestic visitors in the past six years from 4.5 million in 2008 to 3.55 million in 2014. You have suggested no reason for this decline and the fact that now only 50% of your visitors are from the UK, and that this has occurred at a time when other national cultural institutions have seen a steady increase in their domestic visitors.
It is with this in mind that I am addressing you with an open letter. I spent my life in art and education. This has given me a perspective upon your long term in office and the consequences for the visual culture that we inhabit. From 1964 to 1969 I was indoctrinated in the mores of contemporary art. I was 37 when Charles Saatchi began his political project to create a contemporary art world to suit his needs and those of the world of advertising. This project has continued to this day and you have fostered it in your exhibition policies and acquisitions. Unfortunately this has had a malign influence upon the contemporary art world where you have helped to create a state academy version of the Paris Salon of the 1890's based upon the values of the market and not those of a humane civilisation. Unhappily the artworks that typically comprise this "Salon" are largely branded post modernist Kitsch. Despite all the media hype it would seem to be probable that people in the UK are now sickening of this diet of thin unsatisfying gruel.
People will attend fairgrounds but ultimately they will pall. This is evident from the difficulties that you are now having finding anything of interest for the Turner Prize. I say this out of a deep sense of sadness and not as criticism.
In 1998 I remember taking a group of six form students to Tate Modern to see a YBA exhibition. The experience marked the beginning of my disillusion with contemporary state art because I had great difficulties answering my students questions. I could not justify what we were seeing ( Jake and Dinos ) as life enhancing art to myself let alone to my students. These difficulties have increased since to the extent that I now rarely ever darken your doors.
I would ask one thing of you when you sit down with your Trustees ( one of whom ought be an art historian ) to discuss the Dept of Culture figures. That you bear in mind that you act as guardians of the public interest. In doing so I would ask you to abandon accepting artworks as gifts from artists, all notions defining the right kind of artists, concerns promoting poor curation issues and do a complete overhaul of your current exhibition policies putting visual quality and values to the top of your list instead of current fiscal market value. Without this you will soon have a new extension with nothing of value to exhibit. Whilst there are oceans of marketed international contemporary art out there very little of it is of any quality. The poor are actually entitled to resent subsidising the hobbies of the rich who decide that their current art investment opportunity is in fact art when it self evidently is nothing of the sort. This is something that the Tate should not be fostering.
You also have a remit for art education which is now failing in state schools and UK universities and I hope that here you may still do much good.
Yours with a sincere concern for the UK's artistic and visual future
So contemporary art has boxed itself into a corner according to Stuart Jeffries in Guardian2. the only thing this silly piece suggests is that boxes do offer a measure of security to the lost and bewildered.
"Marclay, who was born in California in 1955, loves old US comics and some of these sounds are scissored straight from the pages of cartoons, while others appear to relate very precisely to the medium of painting itself. Plop, Splat, Splish, Glop, the sounds of paint spattering across a canvas invoke Jack the Dripper and the other action painters working the pigment round the surface. Marclay is bridging the gap between abstract expressionism and pop art.
Sure it do as the woman said but it is hardly meaningful high art, more like vague comic book amusement for the idle rich and people with low visual expectations.
Waldemar on the other hand tells us that that the show is exciting but that the fusion of abstract Expressionist colour is Lichtenstein meets Jackson Pollock does not work. "Marclay is many good things but a sensuous abstract Expressionist is not yet one of them - is all a bit stiff but hopefully it will get better. Sound becomes something you can see and touch, it's a show that goes ka tingle boom and you can't have higher praise than that." he argues.
Sooke demonstrates his usual in comprehension with this copy; "The comic-book conceit is elaborated further in a series of paintings that allude to the birth of Pop Art more than half a century ago. Monosyllabic, punchy words such as SPLAT, SPLOOSH and SMAK have been screen-printed over brightly coloured backgrounds laid down with fluid, gestural brushstrokes, evoking the style of Pop’s predecessors, the Abstract-Expressionists." Evoking is all it does.
Waldemar is generally enthusiastic but he is also aware of the contradictions inherent in the work. He says it's a puzzle why an artist whose work's content is apartheid, women, war and alienation should be such a hit with the super rich? It's not all good he says the crucifixion is excruciating. (feeble hubris)
Laura Cumming is more acute in so far as she points to the inconsistency of the work. She explains that the best work is the most unfinished as well it might be because what we have here is an exploitation of very specific painterly dribble and smear effects with lots and lots of solvent soaking the paint into the canvas. Kind of Francis Bacon Lite. The artist is so right on, she writes and talks constantly about the crisis of representation, we are told. Cumming says much of it is awfully poor and dominated by the artists personality. This seems a pretty dumb remark, isn't the personality what distinguishes Rubens from Rembrandt from Carravagio from Delacroix?
Karen Wright is out of her depth, full of praise for the technique and platitudinous. She does mention that all the work is based upon photographs as if this is a very good thing but it is not. Dumas does not, it seems, work from first hand experience. This puts the critics remarks in the bin when she has the cheek to conflate the work by comparing it with Goya and Manet and one despairs that these critics have never been taught how to look. If they had they would not make such silly assertions. "Historical painting is digested and processed in these works; the great paintings of Goya and in particular the blackness of Manet are referenced, but Dumas makes the work seem effortless." Which serves only to point up the weaknesses of the drawing and technique.
The weekend press has articles about Cornelia Parkers forthcoming exhibition in Manchester to celebrate the re-opening of the Whitworth Gallery after a £15 million revamp. First off she talks to Tim Adams in the Observer and he says this of her;"
"She has that sense that some of the freedoms fought for in the 60s and 70s are being erased. Though she has always, she says, felt herself an outsider to any art establishment – she studied at Wolverhampton Poly rather than Goldsmith’s, and though sometimes co-opted was never a convincing YBA – she enjoyed that golden period of free education at art school. "
One would think from the writers condescension that Goldsmith's was the only art college out there and yes, oh yes, freedom, that happy silly illusion; that is another art education casualty in a recession, after free higher education which they still have in Scotland. She is she tells us an artist who wishes to distance herself from all the taint of advertising; Maybe that is what distinguishes her from the products of Goldsmiths.
“I think just being an artist is a political act. Just doing things that are not mediated by anyone else. I don’t do many commissions because I don’t want to tick anyone else’s boxes. Sometimes I’m a bit tempted. I got approached by the Formula One team McLaren who wanted me to do something with the bits of a damaged car. It was a nice idea, but I don’t want to be a jobbing artist, or do anything that seems like advertising.” "She’s not sure she has a mission, but if pressed she’d say it was to close the two cultures gap between literacy in science and art – not least because it represents our best chance of preserving the planet on which we all live."Considering the previous post about the aesthetics of form Parker's sculpture is about the accidental aesthetic accidents that proceed from controlled destruction not from creation.
Finally, this blog has documented some idiocy over the years but this is a new one. French artist Loris Greaud lost his bottle with an art critic over the opening criticism of his latest show in Dallas and had a group of performance artists destroy the whole thing. Why on earth did he bother in the first place if he couldn't handle the criticism and had to throw a stupid juvenile hissy fit? He is in the wrong profession. Only an artist who is profoundly confused about the purpose of art criticism, which is by its very nature just opinion, would demand that reviews of his exhibitions be simple and objective. Those types of reviews exist; they’re actually called press releases.
Stupid article - 21st January Guardian by Jonathon Jones criticising Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth as minor league players in 20th century art. Conceptual prejudices to the fore our erstwhile critic gets it all completely wrong yet again!
This is a particularly thoughtless remark:
"But to claim they are among the really great modern artists is daft. Picasso dwarfs his imitator Moore. But it’s not just Picasso who makes these modernist Brits look minor. In Hepworth’s case the most significant comparisons are with the truly great abstract artists: you cannot seriously set her works alongside those of Brancusi, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Pollock, Rothko or Richard Serra. She is not in the same class."
Well of course she isn't because here our erstwhile critic is not actually comparing like with like. Hepworth was a sculptor and apart from Brancusi he is comparing her work with that of 20th century painters. Only someone who has practised neither could be confused enough to compare and contrast two completely different disciplines. Anyone who has practised both knows that sculpture is an infinitely more demanding discipline that requires a completely different form of thinking to painting on a 2D surface. Picasso was a poor sculptor and a very great painter, Moore and Hepworth were both first rate sculptors. Rothko, Mondrian, Pollock and Serra were all painters whose visual content was minimal in more senses than one. Jone's art criticism you might expect to read in the Sun or Star, lazy and unquestioning assertion and assumption.
Secondly, an interesting piece of really cogent criticism from Adam Thirlwell in Guardian of 24th January concerned with the fact that art no longer shocks anyone. He writes some really good criticism of Manet's Olympia.
He says :"Manet’s genius and the true source of the bourgeois outrage was his ability to “disappoint expectation”: “instead of the theatrical forms expected of him, Manet offered up the starkness of ‘what we see’. And each time it so happened that the public’s frustrated expectation only redoubled the effect of shocked surprise produced by the picture.” The greatness of the art was that it changed the nature of the form." "The shock was just a side effect."
This last comment that the greatness of the art was that it changed the nature of the form is the most meaningful critical remark that has been published for some time because it is so absolutely true. He explains T J Clark's remark that the shock served only to create a failure of criticism. When did this last happen in front of a contemporary artwork? When? not for a very very long time, as he says: "Even in 1865 shock was passe"
When one considers the oceans of avant garde lite we are floating in it is obvious that we no longer have artists of any stature who are capable of creating shock through form. Kapoor's efforts are mere gestures, Koons sculpture is fairground attractions, the Chapman Bros nazis's are horror shock lite and madame Taussauds, Hirst's efforts are presentation and window dressing and Emin's work is self absorbed etc etc. Yet State art is we are continually being instructed is challenging and shocking, but this is lies and passe.
So in this inverted art world of hysterical and false values how can anyone really shock? Thirlwell argues that shock has to dismantle the ruling ideology and be offensive to those who continue to believe in that ideology. Being offensive to salon state art would be a start.
He concludes his summary of the novels of Houellebecq with this pure piece of intelligence:
"The future works of shock I imagine are as formally adventurous as they are intellectually destructive. I’m not in fact sure that true resistance to ideology is possible without resisting aesthetic conventions."
This is one of the most succinct summaries of the complete failure of avant garde lite in the 21st century that has been so far written. Simply because it succinctly points up the lazy dishonesty at the heart of the contemporary "Art" that fills to overflowing our major contemporary art galleries....... Supported as it is by endless written garbage about the supporting cast - Duchamp and his rancid urinal. Odd isn't it how so few people who accept this junk as gospel can see the malevolent irony of it's content and gesture? It's a way of deifying junk!
News today that Richard Long is returning to Bristol for his first local exhibition in fifteen years. He will be using his standard media river Avon mud for his drawings according to the Guardian's Maev Kennedy. Do have a lot of respect for Long, his abstract work speaks eloquently of the brief transience of life in more ways than one.
"George Ferguson, Bristol’s mayor, who is an architect, said the partnership would be hugely beneficial not just for the gallery and the university but for the whole city – one estimate suggests that every pound invested in the arts in Bristol generates a four-fold return." Same old same old elegiac leftist utilitarianism and idealism, how many time have we heard that in the past twenty years and where is there any proof that it is remotely true?
Abstract Art and Society 1915–2015"Waldemar comments that: "the first half of the show is an overcrowded history of art's past whilst the second half is an overcrowded lucky dip of contemporary wilfulness."
Whilst Laura says: "And this is the parallel purpose of the show: to look specifically at the kind of abstract art that aimed to change the world, or that was at the very least supercharged with the possibility of revolution. This is not just Malevich’s sky-high claims for abstraction, that it would break the bonds of earth and rise into some stratosphere of the spirit: “Follow me, comrade aviators, sail into the chasm!” To say all this stuff is boring is to give it much more credence than it warrants. It is boring and inert, of only marginal interest or relevance and defy anyone to attempt to prove otherwise, in particular any architect. Similar guff comes from Louisa Buck in the Tele wag.
She writes this :"It soon becomes evident that geometric abstraction could be used and interpreted in directly opposing ways, with the rigour of its repetitive units capable of expressing both the language of freedom and idealistic optimism as well as the impersonal rigours of unyielding totalitarianism." Re-read this several times and it still does not make any real sense, aesthetically or historically, it is wish fulfilment, of the same level of legitimacy as the current spurious asinine worship of Duchamp.
"The reputation of Goldsmiths as one of the best art schools in Europe is not to be taken lightly. In the last 25 years, the school has produced seven Turner Prize winners and 30 nominees. The school, founded in 1891, is renowned for its multidisciplinary approach to art making and rigorous critical curriculum."
And this marketing refuse : "Francis Outred, Christie's Head of Post-War & Contemporary Art, Europe, commented. “Every bidder will be contributing to the future of the creative industries in Britain."
This should be re-read carefully as follows:
The reputation of Goldsmiths as one of the best art schools in Europe results from the supine and asinine way in which it fawned upon Charles Saatchi as the sole guardian of avant garde-lite and contemporary art values. It has produced more state art acolytes than any other art school, and it's educational provision, curriculum and it's approaches to art making were transitory and doomed, based as they were in lack of rigorous criticism and an unquestioning and uncritical acceptance of conceptual art. This has resulted in terminal damage to UK art education that cannot be undone because the visual skills have been lost. These skills are now sneered at by the terminally incompetent as "Craft." So now we can move move on to consolidate Goldsmith's sourced conceptual kitsch as art, which it will never be!
Cannot forgive this inane and conceited philosophical category error oak tree; an artist is not a priest, no way was this ignorant and blasphemous conceit a legitimate artwork. But then it was only Christianity that was being mocked and it is only art. If you need any further proof of the terminal damage that has been done, consider the inadequate and very expensive Cultural Olympics and their imaginary and non-existent legacy!
Lastly there is this news that Luc Tuymans has been convicted of plagiarism and one wonders why it doesn't happen far more often considering the stolen visual content of some contemporary artists works? You decide which are guilty?
Yesterday's 8 jan Guardian contained these two items. Firstly there are the very sad Japanese villages that have lost their population and are now being peopled with dolls to stand in for the lost real folk. The worrying declining population is a country wide phenomena but one can't help thinking that puppets are not the solution to the problem!
Secondly an article about 84 year old Cecilia Gimenez who destroyed a fresco Ecce Homo in her local church and became an instant global net hit for her ineptness and lack of sensitivity. This put the village on the map and she has now been rewarded for her hopelessly inept reconstruction with art shows which have raised her prices. Ah well, such is the true sense of the market!
Lastly there is this depressing article from Guardian cultural professionals which points up some home truths. That in 2015 we read this is very very depressing, always art education has to fight and fight again it's corner in a nation of pure visual cultural philistines: Again and again the enemy within removes the most basic and obvious art education provision for ideological reasons and pure pig ignorance.
Our most read piece launched in 2014 was this blog from Anita Taylor, director of the Jerwood Drawing Prize, on why drawing needs to be seen as an essential part of the curriculum at all levels for all subjects. “With a history as long and intensive as the history of our culture, the act of drawing remains a fundamental means to translate, document, record and analyse the worlds we inhabit,” she wrote. “The role of drawing in education remains critical, and not just to the creative disciplines in art and design for which it is foundational.”
Little points up the absurdity of contemporary art values as well as the contrast between these two artists. The Tate is giving South African artist Marlene Dumas, a major retrospective so Rachel Cooke in the Observer has been pulled in to do the text. Dumas work is very traditional painter but she is also the most expensive living female artist, her 1995 painting "the visitor" raised £3.1m yet she is relatively unknown by the general public.
"Her career, once it began, built steadily if not spectacularly: “My generation is Julian Schnabel, and he got known so quickly, just like Cindy Sherman and Barbara Kruger. It took me longer.”
She is in essence, a very traditional painter who uses thin washes of coloured shape with slick drawing effects and she admires Francis Bacon - as well she may. Adrain seale has always been a fan so he extolls his enthusiasm in the Guardian. However this text reveals much about our erstwhile critics sparse knowledge of painting:
"Looking at Dumas’s paintings, I am often struck by how little there seems to be on the canvas. The images coalesce out of almost nothing. She somehow cajoles her medium into forming a face, a body, an expression – a sense of being. Wiping paint off as often as painting positive emphatic marks, she gives us cheekbones or a forehead, a proffered anus and balls or a vulva using hardly anything. Going from extreme vagueness to almost crude and snaggly brushstrokes to make an ear or to describe hair, Dumas runs the gamut of painterly effects. The frankness with which she paints draws us in."
Then there is Waldemar Janusczcak writing up the Jeff Koons retrospective in Paris. Insiders are saying that Koon's style is over the hill - have never had much respect for his art, which has been made to exploit the newness of manufactured things and communicates little else of any note or attention. Even the nauseous series of self centred porn stuff cannot be taken seriously as a reflection or questioning on the role of morality in contemporary art. It is no more than what it is, as with his Hoovers it's about empty soulless shiny newness and alienation, as far removed from the humanity of art and aesthetics as you can get in any art gallery.
Waldemar writes:"These are not Pop art ambitions. Where Pop art portrayed different kinds of consumer goodies to make critical points about american society, Koons art appears to have zero satirical intent. Instead in seems entirely happy to have identified some pretty sculptural effects that it wants to celebrate." It needs saying that what sculptural effects there are are produced by the labours of the Italian artisans and craftsmen who produce the work for him
Finally this post about the way the art world operates and the twelve things it needs to change that supposedly explains why people are not buying any art. Whilst agree with the sentiments, are fairly sure that this isn't the real problem. There industrial quantities of pure gunk being manufactured, Etsy and Ebay are drowning in sub standard kitsch posing as artwork. Then there are thousands of "artists" scratching a living and barely surviving who will do anything even work for free to get by. At the same time the quality of what is being produced has never been lower or more depressing, one has only to put the work "art" into a Pinterest search to see what's wrong with the whole thing and it is all about marketing
Today 2nd Jan the Guardian has an article by Mark Brown about the recently appointed head of the CBI for the arts John Kampfner. Kampfner believes that the UK's creative industries are in grave danger from austerity. It is, he says, an incredibly dangerous moment. We have the lead in all branches of the arts and creative industries and are world beaters in almost all sectors, but we are in real danger of losing all of it. The attack upon and removal of arts education from state schools has already taken place, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out over the past two years. Further cuts after the election will probably finish the arts as a cultural force.
He writes; "if we fail to think long term, if we fail to invest in our public spaces and cultural education, the talent pool that has projected us on to this level of the past 10 or 20 years will dry up." Evidence is in that it is already drying up, a Tate curator was berating the fact that no new artists are coming through on the radio only yesterday.
“In adversity you have to equip yourself, you have to arm yourself, you have to find new ways to be resilient ... we are not in any way minimising the challenges. We need to protect public arts and its funding,” said Kampfner, “and we need to equip ourselves for a new reality, which is bringing public and private together.”
He also writes this, so much for trickle down, as if ?:
“One of the confusions I have with this government is, if there is a view that the private pound is as good as the public pound then why is still so difficult to give in this country in terms of philanthropy and the tax system? We see how many wealthy people there are in this country and the proportion of private giving to the arts is miniscule compared with other countries.
“It is partly a cultural thing, it is partly a laziness thing … but it is also a fiscal and governmental thing.”
The mass hysteria generated by the Tower poppies will inevitably become a serious topic of discussion for academics in the future, just as the death of the Princess of Wales became one. Was the display of poppies around the tower any kind of conceptual artwork or was it just a pure piece of theatre? - It was certainly effective and you reader are the judge. It was a beautifully apt visual demonstration of the scale of the appalling bloodletting that overcame the country in 1914-18.
Meanwhile there is this report that there were no New Years Honours for anyone in the Art world, this is quite a new feeling. They all come to expect something good will be their turn eventually but no not any more. Artists are out of it now things are really serious but with all the cash swilling about, they need worry? Philistines are no longer at the gate they are running the entire show so more austerity will mean the loss of more art, which might not be such a bad thing when you consider it may lead to an improvement in quality - all for that!
And finally Bill Drummonds world 25 paintings world tour!
Way back in the 1980's attended a course arranged by the art critic Sarah Kent. Was amused by the whole thing because the young manager who ran the course had received his art history training from the Courtauld. He was much discombobulated when he uncovered the fact that the writer had been a student in the same university group as the artist he was extolling his judgements upon. This experience was a perfect object lesson in how received art history wisdom becomes "coloured" or "contingent". Was surprised to come across these Sarah Kent's comments from June 2014 which gives a cogent contemporary insight into her art criticism:
"You could argue that professional critics are irrelevant now that we have bloggers expressing instant opinions on everything from books to films, television, artworks, operas, and albums. The owners and editors of national newspapers seem to agree. Whereas the quality of our mainstream arts coverage was once admired internationally, critics are now being replaced by feature writers who produce copy as bland as a press release, or sycophantic interviews about the subject’s celebrity rather than their work, of which many seem dismally ignorant. Budget-strapped radio programs are replacing reviews for which they have to pay with interviews that come for free. The aims of the artist, curator, or producer get an airing, which can be interesting but listeners are not offered an appraisal of whether or not the show is worthy of attention."
True comment for the most part, but bloggers such as this one, would not have to shout about the dire state of state art if the mainstream press actually produced penetrative and acute art criticism instead of crawling on it's belly to the blatant pecuniary interest of hedge-funders, advertising magnates or oligarchs. Many contemporary artists who command stratospheric prices in Sotheby's and Christies wouldn't be all over the media if it wasn't in the sordid self interest of an individual to have put them there in the first place for the benefit of their rising prices. A critic's job is surely to point out the discrepancy between the artistic and aesthetic value of an artist's work and the real meaning of the art content they have produced. In a recent conversation on social media, the topic of Jeff Koon's balloon dogs came up and it was pointed out that medieval jesters used to hit courtiers with inflated pigs bladders. One artist remarked that Jeff Koons was being attributed with more sophistication than he was actually capable of. That pretty much summarises the art critic's dilemma. Fortunately bloggers do not have to toe the line, they at least can say it as it is, and more of them are doing so.
Ms Kent concludes her article with this remark:
"For readers, intelligent criticism provides an example of how to think analytically and arrive at judgments that don’t parrot received opinion—skills that are important in daily life. We are encouraged to regard ourselves as consumers who absorb rather than agents who think, assess, or do. Good criticism exemplifies active engagement rather than passive consumption, and is an education for us all."
When did you last see any art criticism that enabled you to arrive at a sound judgement? like when was that? Who was it by? By Jonathon Jones?Alistair Sooke? Bryan Appleyard?Laura Cumming?Adrian Searle? Nope, not one of them, except maybe Charles Darwent who is undoubtedly the best art critic out there but the Independent has stupidly dispensed with his services.
Predict that it will not be any time soon that she assumes a dissident or questioning role to state contemporary art. However the good thing is that some art critics are waking up to what they are shovelling, may that happen more and more in the coming new year.
The terrible problem which no-one is interested in mentioning is now that the UK government has removed art from schools where are the UK's future artists and designers going to come from - the public schools? Not anytime soon the income is far too low. Presumably we don't need any because we have enough arty incompetents with no income. This is yet another example of accelerating the countries cultural decline, the UK replaced it's manufacturing economy with a service and creative one. Now the foundations of the creative economy are being removed by ideology. This is what all schools should be! You cannot say it loudly or often enough: that every child has a basic unalienable human right to an education in art, drama and music as well as English, maths or science. They were given the right to study art as far back as 1840.
This map of American artistic taste cropped up this week in that comic the Guardian and what a lot of tasteless gunk it displays. So who is telling us and going on, that the avant garde has never been so popular and many americans now treat contemporary art like a religion and take it very, very seriously? If they do, then who is this mid - west artist, one Terry Redlin, never heard of him, have you? Apparently this is the sort of art he produces and very Christmas seasonal it is too. Much like a mid west version of Thomas Kinkade though not as downright schmaltzy in execution but still very safe kitsch. What fails to convince that the map has any truth, is the fact that Californians still like Emek, - so who he? He appears to be a graphics industry producing west coast posters. Does this mean that most art in america is now bought by the over 60's?
Meanwhile we have the introduction of a new term by Edward Lucie Smith art critic who now is dissenting from state art and writes for the Jackdaw. His latest piece has coined the term Avant Garde Lite to cover all present manifestations of the cutting edge of art. Very appropriate it is too, considering how far the plot has developed. Avant Garde now means precisely and exactly the opposite of it's accepted meaning in art historical usage. It now means State Art as approved by all the major institutions from MOMA to Tate Modern or the exact equivalent of the 19th century Paris Salon which the Impressionists rejected. It is a fake avant garde, a posture, a simulacrum or an assumed style no more no less.
Lucie Smith writes this: ""Shock tactics no longer shock. Avant Garde art has been gobbled up by the fashion world, and by todays celebrity culture. What's it for? It's for posing in front of wearing a nice new frock. It quotes daintily from Avant Garde styles, that entertained us in the past, but as for trying to change the world - "Have another canape, Darling" - all that stuff seems sooo boring now.""
So with more critics are joining the tide of dissent, something has got to change. Wonder which direction change will come from? There are plenty artists out there who cannot get a look in, waiting for the opportunity to show their work, in truth far too many of them. Also picked up the news that their wages are well below the poverty line.
Top Ten 2014 shows by various enthusiasts; as usual these choices reflect nothing apart from the visual taste of the critics concerned - which to say the least, is a victim of their priorities. Taste is infinitely malleable, and some people have it, some people do not. The Guardian is especially fond of making these lists, the best of etc:
Also this accusation of plagiarism against Jeff Koons by a French graphics artist has cropped up. He is suing Koons for copying his 1985 advertisment for clothing company Naf Naf.
"While those averse to Koons might feel a little schadenfreude over his latest misfortune (or may simply feel he’s getting his due), it’s worth remembering that other artists have also faced legal distress over similar appropriations. Andy Warhol was sued by photographer Patricia Caulfield after he plastered silkscreen reproductions of a flower photograph she took on the walls of the Leo Castelli in 1964. More recently, Damien Hirst, Shepherd Fairey, and Richard Prince have faced copyright suits." The truth is that some contemporary artists don't believe that the copyright of other but seen as lesser artists is worth considering or worrying about.
Interesting article by Gerry Saltz entitled "when did the art world get so conservative?" raises some interesting questions about the censorship now being practised in western art. He finishes it with a questioning remark:
" One of art's great weapons is its bad taste — how something can seem ugly, wrong, or off but still help extend art. Art is for anyone; it just isn't for everyone. And we have to stop acting as if it is something to be domesticated, proper, good. ?"
- Quite! Well yes! and we all have our own answers to that one have we not?
The meaning of art according to the Chinese Premier - it is interesting what pure socialism this is: One wonders how long it will all be tolerated?
"In his October speech, Mr. Xi implored artists not to be “slaves” of the market or to “lose themselves in the tide of market economy or go astray while answering the question of whom to serve.” Since then, many in China’s creative industries have been waiting to see how Mr. Xi’s ideas would be implemented."
Meanwhile we have the erstwhile Mr Januszczak ranting on about his admiration for the american doyen of conceptual artists Joseph Kosuth at Spruth Magers In the Sunday times of 14/12/14. Kosuth, he asserts, was chosen as the conceptual successor by no less than Marcel Duchamp in 1968. If he was then no-one, told anyone else! The current show exhibits neon signs from 1968 to the present - all arcane, precious and pretentious. This is re-writing art history for the gullible. Kosuth was never anything other than a footnote artist in the 1960's. So Waldemar declares " art is not science, not skill but "it's a poetic force that slips the leash of reason to have it's say!" Conceptual hype all of it! Kosuth liked neon, we hear because of it's low life associations. Strip joint and burger bar. His use of it is, according to Waldemar, impish and brilliant about gaps as well as solids. Yah Dah, yah dah, yah dah. The neon work hasn't aged well, it looks positively quaint now.
If you know the history of the art condition by which anyone can declare it's a work art because they are artists and say so, then it's hard not to deeply resent Kosuth for his cod philosophy. Kosuth it was, who legitimised the oceans of neo-duchampian kitsch we are drowning in. He wrote this in art after philosophy:" It is in modern art’s possession of a “language” with the shortest history that the plausibility of the abandonment of that “language” becomes most possible. It is understandable then that the art that came out of Western painting and sculpture is the most energetic, questioning (of its nature), and the least assuming of all the general “art” concerns. In the final analysis, however, all of the arts have but (in Wittgenstein’s terms) a “family” resemblance. " This is simply untrue, art has absolutely no features that correspond with the features of a language, no syntax, no sentences, no letters, no grammar - it has nothing that corresponds with these things! The world is made of facts not ideas. Just because the man said it was so, don't make it so, empirically or otherwise!
Meanwhile at the Observer, Laura Cumming is promoting two other conceptualists, Rainer Ruthenbeck and Julio Le Parc. Never heard of them, despite her telling us they have been around since 1968.
She says;"Ruthenbeck was a student of Joseph Beuys in Düsseldorf, contemporary with Sigmar Polke and Anselm Kiefer. Compared to these German luminaries, both represented in huge surveys this autumn, he is a much more modest figure. His gestures are smaller, more concentrated and unassuming. They don’t always add up."
Neither does Beuy's work but that as they say, is another story.
This week that middle class comic the Guardian has announced that 2014 was the year that British art lost the plot. It's all over for art and artists in GB according to our erstwhile combative Cambridge educated art critic Jonathon Jones! Jones has been upsetting many people recently since he penned the the poppies at the Tower article.
He writes this without any capacity for self reflection as if being an art critic was a proper job with a responsibility for the state of the cultural zeitgeist ;
"For a country that isn’t shocked by art is a terrible place to be an artist. Please someone, do something dangerous. There must be a way to offend this know-all nation. This smothering atmosphere of sophisticated tolerance has to be soured somehow."
So it's the duty of art to sour the cultural atmosphere? What complete and utter gunk. If art's only function is to shock, his Cambridge education did him a disservice, as it puts 99% of all artists in history outside the pale. Perhaps he should carefully consider that we have all grown up somewhat and find that shock and challenge are just empty specs of nihilism for spoilt brats.
This isn't the worst stuff he has penned recently. Michael Sandle a famous sculptures sculptor, wrote this in which has lead to a spat between the Jones and artwatch uk:
" I read Monsieur Jones’s review of Tracey’s show – I thought I’d better go to the Bermondsey White Cube and see if there was something I wasn’t getting. There is indeed a “bat-squeak” of emotion to be felt in her work – which I suppose is positive compared to the sterility of much Contemporary “art”. But the sketches – not really drawings as I understand it – are very definitely formulaic. They are not based on “looking” and she could do them in her sleep. To compare her with Michelangelo is worse than stupid it because it shows a profound ignorance. The poor man doesn’t understand that there is something known as “High Art”. Her little bronzes are like doodles in clay – they have, I suppose, an “innocence” which, considering the effort (including anatomical dissection) that Michelangelo undertook to master his craft, means it is extraordinarily difficult to see any connection whatsoever. Her problem is, that like that of a lot of people who can’t really draw, she can’t see “shape” – if you can’t see “shape” you can’t draw, it’s as simple as that. If Jones’ comments had any truth it would mean that we are “dumbed-down” beyond hope i.e. “f*****” – which I actually think we are."
This refers to the post of 10th Oct concerning Tracey's show at white cube. Now that as we say is the verifiable real life and experienced artistic truth from an artist who commands huge respect from other artists but in our stupid dumbed down state of ignorance the truth has no real place!
No school should be allowed to offer a curriculum without art, music, drama, dance and design at GCSE and A-level.
Ofsted must include arts subjects as part of its assessment of schools. No school can possibly be considered “outstanding” unless it offers art, music, drama, dance and design.
All children must study at least one arts subject at GCSE.
Postgraduate training for art teachers should be enriched, not eroded.
All primary-level teachers must be trained in art, craft and music.
“Artist educators” should be supported – that is, professional artists who teach while also developing their own art practice."
This is very basic arts education provision commonplace only 25 years ago. There are enormous amounts of research on the gains that engagement with arts gives to pupil's performance in the other areas of the curriculum. Removing arts provision as has been done recently is economically blinkered and downright stupid. It is promoting ignorance at the expense of an all round sound education. Creativity is probably the most precious educational skill for the survival of an individual in the 21st century. This applies also to the sad remains of the UK economy - but then they do know all that. Are they also removing art from the public school curriculum in the interests of economy?
Of course it is only part of the story, the arts council are warning of the cuts in the arts that are to come. Never mind - the usual suspects and the auction houses are rich enough to stump up the cash - as if?
Lastly at a time when China is building arts colleges hand over fist they are worrying about their failure to innovate. Having acquired by various means the wests skills and ideas they now find they cannot generate any of their own. This is deeply rooted educational problem that has significant political implications for their future but here is not the place to discuss that. It does have a bearing upon our leaders politically short sighted decisions though, it is one thing we do supremely well but we will not be doing so for much longer, it seems if the arts are abandoned in state education.
First off discontent with the status quo is gathering pace as it needs to do, so Julian Spalding gives a lecture on the pitiable state of contemporary art in the west and argues that public money should not be spent on junk which is just plain common sense. Koons and Hirst are factory managers for the art world, they do not fit any shade of criteria for great art..
In the state art counter-blast a Tate spokesman is reported to have said this: “Tate’s programme is a balance of historic, modern and contemporary art and includes well-known names such as Turner and Matisse, alongside less well-known historic and contemporary artists. Tate acquires work by artists who are critically acclaimed both nationally and internationally.”
This is complete dissemblance and nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. The hyped up promotions of the twenty or so insiders through the Gagosian have little or nothing to do with critical acclaim nationally or internationally. Their critically acclaimed choices are fixes for groups of insiders, (such as the likes of Christopher Wool who's word pics no-one had heard of 3 years ago) and are hyped to the prices of a Boeing 747 by exchange through a closed group of billionaires. The Tate has no duty or obligation to spend any of our sorely derived public funds on this concep[tual art Letraset. Which brings us to the size of this problem, "By 2015, the Arts Council will have “invested” £2.4bn of funds from the government and the National Lottery over a four-year period." And what does it have to show for it?Think what good that could have done, instead of supporting and enhancing a rotten system for the benefit of those that already have.
As David Lee has commented recently, looking at any contemporary art you can't guess to within three noughts what it cost. He says he auction world is a game played by six of the worlds biggest dealers, two sale rooms, 40 artists, 30 billionaires and cliques of museum directors and curators. No-one else matters. Most art criticism is blatant advertising. In 2012 - 11 of the top artists were with the Gagosian gallery. The cowardice of state art before this closed system is a squalid betrayal of their remit and duty, in this system the quality of the art comes last.
Which is why we have a tribute to the current state of university education in art in the Bloomerg young contemporaries which is puerile effete useless junk of nil interest. Not worth mentioning along with the Turner prize 2014 which has the distinction of being the worst effort ever. Turner is just the name to add credence to a video lecture, it's supposed to be an art prize? Both are indicators of how far things have declined in the past thirty years the Turner has been around, books will get written about this
When are the managers who arrange these misbegotten errors of judgement going to wake up and see what has happened to the state of art? They should have the decency to clean out the stygian stable that contemporary art has become, instead of ranting on continuously about the relevance of the art condition. A condition it surely is, much like a medical condition. It literally does not have to be this way!
A new financial record for a female artist - A Georgia O'Keefe. sells for $44.4 Million.
Will Self announces that the hyper rich are ruining London. He makes a sophisticated case explaining that the new Tate extension is problematic: "The new Tate Modern will thus be not an art gallery per se, but a sort of life-size model of what an art gallery might be should our culture have need of one. Since it doesn’t, but rather has a requirement for visitor attractions that reify the ever‑widening gulf between haves and have-nots, I’m absolutely certain it will prove an outrageous success." Hubris.
This Sunday's Independent contains an article by a Nick Clark who argues that British Culture is flatlining because of local authority cuts. He reports Robert Hewison an historian as saying that the UK cultural infrastructure will disintegrate after the next election through lack of government funding. It is being sustained at present by the Lottery fund. Do wish that ACE didn't waste so much propping up the unsustainable state art structure. This coalition government is narrowing the audience for the arts by marginalising the arts in the state the education system (public schools don't have any problem) which is now actively limiting arts participation. All so very predictable. The Blair government entered a Faustian pact with the arts which later created a lack of trust, and is now completely broken by money. We will all be the much poorer for it, lost the empire, now actively loosing the arts. Closed the local art schools and museums. So short sighted and downright stupid in purely economic terms alone, let alone quality of life. Short term ignorance is cheap but the most expensive in the long run. British design was not so long ago the very best in the world.
"Neoliberalism brought us the banking crisis and is bringing us a cultural crisis. It's a slow burn, but it's happening," Hewison is reported as having said. There is no will to reverse it.
Prince Charles does many very good and positive things and it's great to see that the Charlotte St, Princes Drawing School has been now upgraded to the Royal Drawing School. It says much that for the last decade practically the only art institution in the UK teaching fine art drawing was the school that the Prince set up to preserve the artist's most needed and most pertinent form of visual notation. The rest of the higher education inadequates threw the baby out with the bathwater in pursuit of shlock advertising imperatives and faux art education based upon non-sense.
So don't come back with all that purile non-sense about drawing being taught in secondary schools at GCSE and A level - get real, as if that is remotely possible when headmasters are dispensing with their art departments as fast as they legally can?