Andre Wallace

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Contemporary art - monetise in search of meaning 2

This week have decided to further explore further the desperate ongoing monetising of contemporary artworks. So for your further consideration a few soiled gems that need serious consideration, if only for their sheer affront;

First off Jeremy Corbin's cultural policy - spending public money will make us all happier he say !

Marina Abramovic needs to make some serious money according to Bloomberg ? Though one can ask exactly what it is that she is selling ?

Mass monetisation of art is debasing aesthetic currency.

Confused art think from Jonathan Jones in the Guardian

Stephen Bailey is worried about artist's estates and squabbling among their heirs

Neo-liberalist capitalism vs contemporary art producers

Utter and Complete Horlicks from the Liverpool Biennale - contradiction in terms

Apparently Graffitti or street art is now somewhat gentrified. Time was when it was criminal behaviour but then in terms of its content it still is.

This art-bollocks is called Churmmin it!

Monetising kitsch - the usual suspects outstanding success.

Empty vessels always make the most noise.

According to Linkedin even Museums are getting in on the act. Art cannot be anything, a door is not art, a chair is not art, a car can be art but usually isn't.

Re-appropriation is what the Chinese call monetising art.

Can the Chinese innovate? well can they?

Stealing other artists work for profit.

Does this question really need asking, seriously ?

Lastly some seriously dumb and stupid assertions from blind techies who assume that they alone know everything.

Why is contemporary art so poor?

Generate your own practise statement artbollocks here

If the above have anything at all in common it is the coarseness and stupidity of their use of language. When anyone recourses to this kind of crap jargon they are doing it for a purpose, to confuse and dismay. 

Monday, September 19, 2016

Paeans for Sir Nicholas Serota

Last week brought the news that Sir Nicholas Serota is moving on from the Tate empire to chair Arts Council England.
The press has been full of praise for the way in which he managed the growth of Tate  Modern to become the foremost Museum of Modern Art in the world (sic). This has been achieved by putting popularity in front of any notions of artistic excellence (as is usual) and he has truly been responsible for inflating the reputation of some particularly dodgy excuses.

That said there has been one faint voice of dissent - that of Waldemar Januszczak in the Sunday Times. He points out that he was the right man in the right place at the right time, that he, in conjunction with Charles Saatchi opened up modern art to the common man and populism. What he doesn't mention is that Saatchi's keen interest in art was never disinterested. His intention was solely to bend  fine art art to serve the interests of his advertising industry and in this he succeeded. Lately it hasn't worked so well, because his utilitarianism shot the golden goose in the art education head. You cannot educate fine artist to do anything apart from make art - all other is design. Art students are now asking to be taught how to paint and draw properly and they won't be washed off with any excuses for conceptual art. It was of little or no co-incidence that the aesthetics of 'art' got lost and destroyed along the way. Maybe as a final funeral service over the entire dark plot, we have the BBC promoting Conceptual art on channel four this week. Is it not time to grow up and move on? Is it not? Some of us we are heartily sick to our stomachs of boring recycled conceptual fake non-sense.  It cannot be said loud enough, Dada was antique infantilism,  rich kids ostensibly kicking against WW1. The real men - Orpen, Bomberg, Clausen, Wyndham Lewis, Nash, Nevinson, Stanley Spencer, and Eric Kennington made their art work on the bloody western front, not among New York socialites.

Waldemar writes; " With subtle nudges of the tiller, Serota had turned going to a modern art gallery into an experience not dissimilar to going to a family amusement park. So, yes, he's a magnificent Establishment operator. That's why making him head of the Arts Council is such a good idea."

Subtext, it is supremely important that contemporary art is held in a very safe pair of hands. Because those artists, well they might get up to anything? They might start dealing with issues that matter like Politics, Syria, food banks, global warming or immigration and such, and we can't have that subsidised by the public, now, can we? So lets keep it meaningless and empty shall we?

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

Wall decoration.

In a weeks time the BBC will be putting out a series of programs of support for State conceptual art which it says, will be very challenging and thought provoking.  Unfortunately Conceptual art is a defunct strategy and has not produced one single piece of artwork of note - not one that will last more than six months and that includes all decaying formalin bottled animals. The entire ill-judged Kosuth-Duchamp rehash is now as noxious as that antique movement from which it derives it's spurious legitimacy - Dada.  Despite all the heavy weight media hype that has and is being thrown at it, it is and was always dead as the Dodo.  When you look and look at any of these conceptual objects there is nothing there except your own belief system. If you have no faith in the idea - then the priests are lying to you. Just as Duchamp was when he constructed the Large Glass. 

These past fifteen years have seen the rise of an endemic form of paint dribbling termed Zombie formalism. Literally the weakest excuse for art it is possible to conceive of as a wall decoration. It has countless forms in the UK and the States but all the many participants earning a crust have one thing in common, they cannot be bothered to depict anything. There are reasons for this, i.e. they have not been taught anything by anyone apart from pseudo art-speak and crits, consequently they vanish into smoke when their meaninglessness is challenged. They are a sad footnote to the conceptual art which the BBC will be promoting as new and of real concern, when it is actually neither.

This post is an introduction some of those 'Artists' whose artwork literally dribbles down the wall:

There is much more, lots and lots more which you can trawl up from the net depths, which doesn't say much because it's an extremely expensive way of seeking any image that accidentally corresponds with something your brain may have experienced.
To quote Caps Crits; "it traces a regrettable development, not so much for the fate of abstraction or painting but for an artist too anxious to remain in step with his times, for times inflating an aesthetic to unsustainable proportions."
An accidental aesthetic moreover - quite so!

Good artists who are not hyped by the State art machine

Firstly the death has occurred at the age of 84 of Professor Robert Clement. He was one of the most influential and most inspiring UK art teachers of the past half century. Note this, in great respect for the way in which his expertise and humour guided a whole generation of english art educators. This was before the discipline was rendered ineffective by politicians who enforced the content of the art curriculum. It was a far better era for art education in every respect, than the truly stupid dumbed down culture we now inhabit.

The rest of this post concerns good artists who have achieved great things by quietly getting on with the job of applying coloured glue to a support without State art publicity.

David Kassan

Adam Miller

David Liggare

Jason De Graff

Alyssa Monks

Sarah Harvey

Tai Shan Schierenberg

Thursday, September 01, 2016

What is a Tastemaker?

This week 28th August, the Observer carries a six page hype on the UKs Tastemakers as well they might and another article on the Oxford museum of modern art by Laura Cumming.
Cumming writes;"  In the last gallery, Abramović’s Black Dragon projects from the wall: three chunks of quartz positioned at head, heart and loin height; the artist was apparently investigating the healing power of crystals. Back in the 90s, visitors were urged to lean against them, but not any more. Now all touching is forbidden. This is one story of our experience of art in the past 50 years, permanently distorted by soaring prices and insurance costs. But it is also, in another sense, the story of Modern Art Oxford – a place where so many people had their first glimpse of international artists in solo shows before they became too big for this world."

Doesn't say much for the art, now does it?
Needless to say Tastemakers lists a usual roll call of state art acolytes. Hans Ulrich Obrist 'doyen of blacked out Limousines' at the Serpentine, Maria Balshaw of the Manchester Whitworth museum, and Sarah McCrory of the Glasgow International, all of them hell bent on finding new young talent and ideas. Only there aren't any out there to find and fulfil their criteria and there won't be as long as our university art education system keeps turning out the current product.

Which brings us neatly to the fact that Jeremy Corbin says he will have due regard for the development of the arts and arts education.
"The nature of university degrees is also changing with the progressing marketisation of education. Arts degrees are costly to deliver and difficult to measure in terms of “graduate outcomes” and “value for money” – key metrics in the soon-to-be-introduced Teaching Excellence Framework. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of arts education is under threat – and with it, the future of Britain’s cultural health as a whole." Perhaps it is already too late.