Contemporary Art and Music; Most of it's shit really... isn't it?

Recently I've been reading a lot of books and magazines. Yes folks that's right the written word isn't quite obsolete... yet! In particular I've been reading a fair bit on contemporary art and the mechanisms and market forces which make this seemingly crazy world work. Earlier this year I was enthralled by Sarah Thornton's "Seven Days In the Art World", which was written so well it made the art world almost feel like some fictitious alternative universe where you could be transported to Alice's Wonderland... but for adults.

Keen to read more, I picked up Don Thompson's "the $12 Million Stuffed Shark; The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art and Auction Houses". Don's background is an economist and a professor in business so this promised to be a drier more calculated affair... something which I thought might offer an alternative perspective. However, once again I have been drawn in and find the world so ridiculous that it offers a real charm. In spite of this, there is a point which keeps coming up and is also a personal bugbear of mine... the issue of consistent quality and how good is the art we're being offered? The answer to this issue seems strikingly obvious to me, yet something no-one has ever really made explicit. The answer I also believe offers striking comparisons with the world of popular music, be it pop or within the realm of underground music.

In "The $12 million Stuffed Shark" I read a passage which claimed 85% of contemporary art is actually really quite bad. Later leading players such as Philipe Segalot are asked who are the great contemporary artists, his argument is that there are no more than ten in any given generation. If you actually think about it this really is common sense, in any generation in any art form it is rare that posterity offers itself to much more than ten leading artists. However, it when we answer who are the leading artists that question becomes trickier... in Thompson's book it becomes clear that there is no discernible universal agreement- just a rough consensus as to who the leading contenders are.

A panel of experts believe Cy Twombly to be one of the great contemporary artists of the last 50 years in Don Thompson's book; I personally am unconvinced

The same panel cite Bacon as another the greats; I agree with his inclusion

Here I've posted up a couple of examples which made the panel of experts' choices for greatness. It is interesting to note that neither Twombly or Bacon made Segalot's list. However, right now we're splitting hairs over some of the biggest names in the game, so to speak. What about the current output? Well, I guess this is the point- out of the tens of thousands of artists out there there is no doubt in my mind that at the very least 99% are useless... this is not to denigrate people's efforts... it is simply a plain fact that to be considered great you have to be strikingly original and offer something that really captures people's attention to the extent that you gain a passionate support.

The whole reason that I bring this up is that I remember just over a year ago attending an interview for a position at a leading contemporary gallery/ arts centre. The venue in question had a forthcoming exhibition from Martin Creed. I was aware of this but loathe to really mention the forthcoming exhibition as, for me, Creed is no more then a so-so artist for his generation. I do not find his work particularly compelling in either a performative or conceptual sense. Unfortunately, his exhibition did come up and my feigned enthusiasm came across (there are other lessons to learn here! Just be honest). However, my annoyance really is that rather than appearing critical I subsequently found out in feedback that my deference came across as ignorance or "not getting it"... the fact that I focussed my attention upon the likes of Basquiat, Hockney and Bacon actually had made me come across as hopelessly old fashioned and out of touch! Ouch!

However, before I continue, I want you to watch the following;



I don't particularly want to pick on Martin Creed, as he seems like a reasonable bloke, but lets be honest, I don't see him really playing dumb here, it really is as superficial as some of his "self effacing" answers would suggest. I'd also add here that interviewers like Alastair Sooke invariably perpetuate the problem... I often find his delivery overly sincere and far too accommodating and sympathetic towards some of his subjects. At worst he can be downright sycophantic. Anyway, the problem here is that we don't develop any critical discourse regarding what is good... it's almost like everyone is afraid to say, "no that's shit!" for fear of "not getting it". This is clearly an absurd counter-intuitive position which can only do more harm than good.

The problem is that people don't like being criticised and furthermore we live in a world where the market for contemporary art is greater than ever before with more exhibitions and galleries opening than has been seen in a long time. To satiate that desire there will be an inevitable fall in terms of quality. Simple economic supply and demand can teach us this. I happen to think there are some really good contemporary artists and a few great ones, much like music. Does not being that metaphorical sponge open to everything mean I'm "out of touch"? Well maybe to some, but actually I'd suggest all it does it make me more of a lean, mean machine ready to sift through the bullshit and decide for myself what really has it going on... The key is to remember, my opinion is subjective so you should reach your own conclusions and that by not offering any critique you're, more often than not, not actually offering anything at all! Think about it!

Next time in art I'll be discussing what I think makes contemporary art and why I think so many critics/ advocates are struggling with the definitions...

REPRISAL: 90s LO-FI, SLACKER ROCK, COLLEGE ROCK, ALT ROCK...

So I've been immersing myself in the current alt rock/pop scene in America recently... particularly the bands gaining a lot of attention in blogs and from the likes of Pitchfork. I'm thinking the likes of Deerhunter, No Age, Women, Sufjan Stevens, Fang Island, Harlem, Beach House, Surfer Blood, Local Natives, Gayngs, Best Coast, Abe Vigoda, Sunset Rubdown, Male Bonding, Braids, etc... There are some great bands in the mix here, however, there are two scenes in particular which these bands keep reminding me of, namely, 60s psych and 90s lo-fi college rock... so I thought it time to check out a few bands from these scenes to see how they compare...



There were so many great bands during this period who created the scene which provided the principle inspiration for the likes of well known industry media/ promoters; drowned in sound, atp and pitchfork to name the largest/ most influential/ most obvious!!!

My first video is from a British group Cable who are one of the least well known bands from around that period, and indeed were best known for one of their songs being used on a Sprite advert, however, it would be criminal to overlook them as their album, "When Animals Attack" was a classic from start to finish.

There were many great British bands in this period, most of whom it is near impossible to find anything about now- a fact which is so alien in our modern times post internet, where everyone has and documents nearly everything. Bands I particularly remember liking in this period from Britain are; Bivouac, the Heads, Eska, Urusei Yatsura, Backwater, Umbrella, the Beatnik Filmstars, etc...



Next up from this period are Superchunk, like so many of the American bands, their story is in stark contrast to their British counterparts. They are a well known band and I suspect their story is well documented. However, this is possibly more to do with the fact that had the get up and go to set up their own label, Merge Records, which of course is a huge success story and has since released Arcade Fire among others...





The two videos above are from two personal favourites; Built to Spill and Archers of Loaf. The former is a song taken from their album; "Perfect From Now On", which is a stand out classic which really needs to be listened to from start to finish. Archer's of Loaf were probably my personal fave of all the lo-fi bands, their EP "Vrs the Greatest of All Time" is still one of my favourite ever records and was produced by Bob Weston of Shellac.

Other bands of note in this period I'd like to mention are; Sebadoh, Guided By Voices, Yo La Tengo... there are soooo many and people who are interested in the contemporary bands who I mentioned at the start of this post should definitely check these bands out if they have a spare moment! Finally I leave with a Pavement track- not an original choice, but still another of my favourites and perhaps the band who might through their undiminished popularity lead people to investigate some of the other bands from this period...

INTRODUCING: MARQUES TOLIVER

So last night I popped down to the Rockfeedback Xmas shin dig at the Buffalo Bar In London. Anyway, I was a little late, but not too late to miss a performance from this guy called Marques Toliver. Marques has been dubbed "new school classical soul" by the Guardian, he apparently is fom New York and learnt his craft busking on the streets. Whether this is true or not I don't know, what I do know is that he has this fantastic voice which seems to effortlessly hold notes whilst conveying great passion. He accompanies his voice with minimal instrumentation, be it violin, guitar or piano.

What really struck me about Toliver was how he almost immediately transported me into this other world where I was suddenly in John Cameron Mitchell's "Shortbus" and a fully fledged member of the NYC boho art scene. For my money any artist capable of this has got something going on... I fully expect to hear much more from Marques in the future. I've attached his recent performance on Jools Holland so you can decide for yourselves!

TOP DOGS: WHO'S THIS YEARS DADDY (PART 2)

So last week I took a look at who was doing well in the critics end of year polls. I considered some of the selections within Under the Radar and Rocksound Magazine. Today I will be taking a look at the selections of Rock-A-Rolla and Q Magazines. Once again these are two publications which have minimal overlap, but once again I believe them to both contain selections of real merit.

ROCK-A-ROLLA

So top spot goes to Michael Gira's Swans who return after a thirteen year absence with their latest full length. I've included the tracks "You Fucking People Make Me Sick" and "Reeling the Liars In" from the album "My Father Will Guide Me Up A Rope to the Sky..." "YFPMMS" features a haunting minimal melody with backing vocals from Gira's own three year old daughter before it plunders into a schitzoid world in which pianos seem to fall from stairs... Oooh. "RTLI" is a very strange effort for the Swans, lest we not forget these guys are the godfathers of the NY no wave scene, the song is stripped down and reminiscent of Lou Reed or Nick Cave!!!






For the other slots from Rock-A-Rolla I've opted for Master Musciians of Bukkake. To my mind MMOB don't really sound like anything I've heard before, perhaps that's a reflection upon my lack of well rounded musical knowledge... who knows?! Anyway, despite the gross out moniker this band sound like the soundtrack of some spaced out crazy cult... if that can be a sound? The music is kinda hypnotic and has moments of sublime beauty. Anyway, here's "Patmos" from their album "Totem Two" (fifth in Rock-A-Rolla's album of the year list).



It's hard to define US Christmas, whose album "Run Thick In the Night" came 6th in RAR's end of year poll. I guess the closest thing would be stoner or psych rock perhaps?! However, that probably doesn't do justice to a band which seems so sonically ambitious. This is USX's fifth album and is their third to be released on Neurosis' Neurot label. I've been so taken by these guys that I've also added a further track called "Scalphunters" from their third album, on top of "Suzerain" from 2010's "RTITN".






Q

Q magazine's album of the year is "The Suburbs" from Arcade Fire. I've loved Arcade Fire ever since they released their debut "Funeral", for me this their third album represents a return to form., some friends have even suggested this is their best effort to date, which for me is a stretch, however, there are some crackin' tunes here, I've included a performance of their song "Month of May" which they did on the Jools Holland show.



I've plumped for Gil Scott-Heron's "I'm New Here" as one of my extra picks from Q's list. The album came twelfth on their list and represents a labour of love for XL records boss Richard Russel who also produced the album. I've included the song, "Me and the Devil" from the album which features a haunting black and white video. I love GSH's frazzled blues vocal on the track with it's brooding minimal musical accompaniment, the outro is a bit spesh as well!



The Black Keys' album "Brothers" came eleventh on Q's list. I've included the single, "Tighten Up" from the album. Check it out!

POP ART: HOW AVANT GARDE FILM INFILTRATED MAINSTREAM POP CULTURE

This has been a bugbear of mine for well over a year now, pretty much ever since everyone went, well gaga, over the Lady G herself. I've never been a particular fan of Lady Gaga, her poppy numbers seemed to bring nothing new to the table, standard mainstream keyboards and beats plus big chorus... so far, so what's new?! However, as a marketing entity I've always been impressed BY Lady Gaga, almost to the point of chin stroking admiration. Her emphasis on the visual, her clever dissemination of rumour, and her ability to take the visual underground, normally the realm for the pretentious and high brow into the mainstream are relatively unique qualities.


Lady Gaga- Bad Romance


Matthew Barney- the Cremaster Cycle

The reason I post this now is that it appears that image and artistic videos are becoming an increasingly important part of the package within music in popular culture. I mean, it would be naive to argue otherwise, but this is becoming increasingly so... Recent case and points to my mind are Kanye West (at least he has the vision adn tunes to back up his vision) and ditto to Janelle Monae's "Tightrope", a super talented artist whose song's video so obviously apes the mother of avant-garde filmatic art, Maya Deren. Anyway, here's some clips tell me if you think I'm seeing things and it's just coincidence, however, I would add I think in general the use of artistic imagery from the artworld is more in homage in these cases, and really I wish perhaps the alternative community could make more use of such influence.


Kanye West- Runaway


Maya Deren- Meshes of the Afternoon


Janelle Monae- Tightrope

HYPE: FROM SEATTLE TO BLOGS...

There have been a couple of very separate things I've stumbled across recently; one was an old documentary film called Hype! which charts the rise of the grunge scene in Seattle. The other was a piece in Under the Radar Magazine which questioned the changing musical landscape and the role blogs were playing in this brave new world. The contrast between the two is striking and I believe there are many pros and cons to both movements, but ultimately it seeems like one is more progressive than the other and ironically I believe it to be that of the way music developed in the likes of Seattle in the 80s.

Hype! paints a picture of a very dingy city cast out on the fringes of mainland America. Apparently Seattle is the serial killer capital of the US and to add insult to injury hardly any national touring bands came to Seattle because it made no sense economically to play a city so remotely located. The results are startling, a huge self sufficient musical community began to emerge. Borne from frustration of countless home town bands getting no attention, "failed pop musicians" Bruce Pavitt and Jonathan Poneman formed Sub Pop records.



Sub Pop's genius was to market the label itself ahead of an individual band, take note bloggers and modern progressive thinking DIYers! Having flown in Everett True from the UK, Sub Pop gained critical attention within the UK music press and as a result the world was sold! However, I believe, the real reason that Seattle and what was subsequently to be called Grunge dominated the music scene was ultimately as a direct result that a huge geographical area was in a state of seeming perpetual incubation. A lot of talented musicians had time to develop musically and a lack of success also forced only the most dedicated to keep going, it also ios something which invariably forces people to raise their game, hione their sound and solidify their identity individually and collectively. Of course, it helps that there were bands as talented as Nirvana, the Melvins and Soundgarden!



This, clearly a portrait of a bygone era, could not be more stark in its contrast with the modern music model. The difference kinda reminds me of an old Good Riddance record title; "Ever revolving, never evolving," in that now with the immediacy of the internet and the with bloggers scrambling for the next big thing bands and scenes can be picked up upon before any real investment has been put into the music and it's identity. The most obvious examples of which are the recent blog lead Witch House and Chillwave movements.



This is not to say that I dislike Witch House or Chillwave, as they seem to be known. Indeed, I think there are some really great bands within these scenes, I think the real worry is that they will never really develop their true potential. The records won't necessarily be as good as they could be, the individuals may not be as committed and there may well not be the cohesive identity which glues these people together to create the solidarity necessary when, as is inevitable in the fickle world of music, you fall out of favour with the ever changing musical landscape of fads and trends...

Of course, there is an argument that the creation of genres in our modern musical society is an act of convenience to embed a stamp upon a group of artists and provide with fresn, new and exciting identities. The problem with this is what happens afterwards, in Under the Radar Magazine it documents artists who having originally been labelled with new exciting identities and having received unfathomable hype find themselves stuck in a rut. Some artists have been forgotten before their first album has even come out, others having not had time to develop find it difficult to meet expectations having now to operate within the constant blinding glare of mass public consciousness.


I would also add to this that problems of originality begin to emerge. It is all very well to have an original idea, but to fulfil it's potential a great idea needs development. Will artists get this time, or will they even consider raising their game to fulfil their own potential, believing their own hype and thus discarding their potential and settling for what is good instead of what could have been great.



Below and above are some videos from bands within the respective Witch House and Chillwave movements. From my understanding Witch House is meant to provide a modern kind of synth led horror music, whereby dark themes ar eunderpinned by a low end rumbling bass keyboard and a higher cutting synth sound- a bit like a John Carpenter soundtrack, crossed with nods towards new wave and krautrock perhaps?! Proponents seem to include: oOoOO and Salem.



Chillwave, in turn documents the endless summer, within this camp I can see two types of bands a kinda well written derivative modern pop take on the likes of Yo La Tengo and Cocteau Twins, step forward Beach House, Best Coast, et al... and then a kinda chillout, slowburn hip hop from the likes of Toro Y Moi, Teen Daze and Washed Out... Anyway, would love to hear people's opinions if they have any... be it nods of approval or consternation at the arrogance and temerity of my post(s)!!!

TRANGRESSIVE ART: PAUL McCARTHY

I recently stumbled across the work of Paul McCarthy in Matthew Collings' "This Is Modern Art". In many ways he appears to me to be a natural successor to Marcel Duchamp, who is perhaps the most influential of all artists upon what we now know and love (?) as contemporay or modern art.

When Duchamp prsented a urinal as art, entitled "Fountain" he turned the very nature of art on its head. He reasoned, "the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his own contribution to the creative act."



To follow this reasoning we are all culpable in the modern art movement. We are metaphorical accessories, by even addressing the work, be it with disdain or disapproval you are validating it. This may sound crazy but it carries a certain truth.

Duchamp's "Fountain" has logically lead to art becoming heavily conceptualised. By placing the emphasis upon the viewer and claiming that their own personal psychological take is a prerequisite for the art's validation, modern art has flattered at every possible turn and has pathed the way for its own extrordinary success. "I get it, you don't. I get it, I love it. That's all that matters! The artist and me... genius." Like some tripped out God complex!

McCarthy is probably the man who has taken Duchamp's trangession into the realms of true bad taste. Birth, death, sodomy, mastarbation- the taboo is no longer taboo when you're hangin' with McCarthy. One piece entitled "Class Fool" lead to McCarthy knocking himself out and violently throwing up having thrown himself around a room filled with ketchup... the performance did not end until everyone had left the room! McCarthy is said to wish to undermime "the myth of artistic greatness".



Anyway, here's a video and some pics for you to gross out to and work out whether he's a genius or not... but a word of warning; by so much as thinking about it, it no longers matters- you're already involved... butt plug and all!