The author is Julian Spalding, who is "considered to be controversial maverick and outspoken critic of the art world" according to his own website.
He studied art history and art, briefly tried his hand as an artist and designer and then became a curator - notably as a director of galleries in Sheffield, Manchester and Glasgow. Since 2001 he's concentrated on writing. Here's a link to his Wikipedia entry.
I read this book in one sitting, partly because it's more of a booklet than a book, partly because it was really interesting, and partly because I agreed with most (but not all) of his views.
It was a relief to discover that there were knowledgeable people in the art world that shared my dim view of a lot of conceptual contemporary art, or "con art" as Spalding calls it. He does think it's a con.
Really interesting: Marcel Duchamp...
According to Spalding, Duchamp didn't dream up the idea of submitting a urinal for an art exhibition!
It was a wild and whacky friend of his, Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
She submitted the urinal, in 1917, it was rejected, and much, much later on, in the 1960s, long after the Baroness had died, Duchamp claimed the idea as his own.
None of his own stuff was any good and he needed something to justify his status as the founding father of modern art - a myth he'd created by effectively hood-winking a magazine into running a big puff piece on him in 1945.
UPDATE: See my subsequent post on Duchamp.
This reminds me of the nutty French man in Banksy's "Exit through the gift shop" video. Can't recall his name but he created and sold a warehouse full of art (made by assistants) for many millions of dollars by effectively promoting himself using Banksy-style street art.
Really interesting: John Berger's Ways of Seeing...
According to Spalding "John Berger's immensely popular TV series and book Ways of Seeing (1972) ... began the rot. "
By the way the book wasn't immensely popular with me. I read it early on in this course and struggled to understand its relevance to the work I was producing myself.
Berger argued that photography had killed off painting in 1900, which led to the National Gallery succumbing to pressure from Sir Nicholas Serota and handing over all of its 20th century collections to Serota's Tate.
Berger's "poison spread" according to Spalding. The Tate ended up getting into bed with art dealers. The dealers propose exhibitions and the Tate goes along with it on the basis that it will be given some of the works of art in exchange for providing the gallery space.
Everybody on the inside wins because recognition by the Tate results in values rocketing. Hence the current situation with favoured "con artists" making millions for work that plebs like me suspect is taking the piss.
A view I don't agree with: Antony Gormley, a con artist?
Spalding contends that "found objects" (such as the urinal) can't be art because they can't project the artist's "voice" - the characteristic style that distinguishes one artist from another.
He says this applies to Antony Gormley because a lot of his works start off by making a cast of his own body, a found object. "Antony Gormley is the hollow man of modern art, a con artist pretending to be a real one," writes Spalding.
I think this is going too far. Gormley's work can easily be distinguished from other artists. It does have a voice. To me there's two things that set it apart - the way his figures are positioned in relation to landscapes and the invitation to consider the inside and outside of his body and the interface between the two, in his body "cases". See my previous post on Gormley.
By Spalding's reckoning my latest project is a con, because it's based on a found object. I plan to use misshapen carrots to create a cast glass "sculpture" (for want of a better word). The working title is "No One's Perfect" and my aim is to make people think about human imperfections and deformities. More about this here.
I think this is a world apart from found objects like the urinal and the screwed up A4 sheet of paper and stacks of cardboard boxes in Martin Creed's current exhibition.
Like children I think these folk are testing the boundaries, in their case of what can be considered to be art, not by the public but by the folk with the power to make them rich - and they're discovering there are no boundaries.
Hirst might be the extreme example of this. He seems to have pushed things to the point of sneering at the people that buy his 'work'. "Nastiness is the thread that runs through all of Hirst's 'creations'," writes Spalding.
For instance, his assistants bring him the "spin paintings" they've produced. Hirst's only input is the title - "the first strings of words that come into his head" according to Spalding. They include 'Beautiful, Kiss My Fucking Arse Painting', "Beautiful, Cheap Shitty, Too Easy' and 'Beautiful Revolving Sphincter Oops Brown Painting'.
And they sell for $75,000 apiece!
No comments:
Post a Comment