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.
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment