'The Mona Lisa Curse' on Channel 4 on the 21st September was brilliant, timely television, led by wise critic tortoise Robert Hughes. I was later saddened to find that Germaine Greer had managed to publish such an appallingly underhand and patronising piece of writing on it. The Guardian got quite a few letters in response but none of them had quite the deserved venom.
I've been a little unfair in taking these quotes out of context but they nevertheless can be found in Greer's piece and accompanied by her super profile picture at http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/22/1.
'The shelves and cabinets in Pharmacy (1992) were sloppily fitted and poorly finished, but they still sold for £11m.'
'What is touching about Hughes's despair is that he thinks that artists still make things. It's a long time since Hirst actually made an artwork with his own hands.'
(Hirst's) 'undeniable genius consists in getting people to buy them.'
'Damien Hirst is a brand, because the art form of the 21st century is marketing.'
'Hughes still believes that great art can be guaranteed to survive the ravages of time, because of its intrinsic merit.'
'Bob dear, the Sotheby's auction was the work.'
Damien Hirst is a brand, like many dead artists. His most exceptional achievement is that he is commanding obscene prices as a living artist. But this really does have little to do with his work itself, which is so tacky and literal it isn't worth talking about. Despite the immense media frenzy incurred by his recent auction, very little was actually written about his work. Because it's crap.
Money can do many things but it can't make bad art good.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Hey Ann
I came on here because someone clicked through from your site to Attack!!!! (I'm the editor!) and I wanted to say thank you for linking to me!
I don't agree about Hirst, though, I thought the exhibition was awesome... my review's up here: http://werenevergoingtoagreeaboutthefeeling.blogspot.com - but I do agree that pronouncements like the ones you've quoted are crap. It has to be about the work. If people don't like the work, fine - but they shouldn't pretend it's all about how much it costs, just so they can pretend they do.
dear Wes
yes we added Attack!!! as we like it. we hope it brings you just rewards.
agree with your sentiments on the 'work' having to be central to the debate and the smokescreen of 'marketering' as 'art action'.
though when art's 'value' is warped, comodified by capitalist notions of 'value' then invariably the work suffers. it clouds the issue. it adds a layer of endorsement.
if Hirst's work didnt command such sums what would we be talking about? what would be left?
Hirst is self parodying- he cant escape his own artist brand- hence, i expect,his tiring of certain works perhaps- though more than likey it was a cynical ploy to drive prices up and encourage buyers 'these are the last spot paintings i'll ever do'....
The issues Hist raises, the crisis of value and art it evokes is a good thing. Perhaps there will be a backlash? certainly not from the moneyed dictators of taste (taste being the questionable word) but from artists, gallerists and dealers.
I think there is an element of this but I also think there are works that are just stunning. Did you see the show itself? Regardless, we agree that the Greer article is nonsense - I mean, it would actually be possible to have an auction where the auction itself was the artwork, but this was not it - but I seem to find that there is a lot of comment [not necessarily your own, but it is ambiguous] which is based only on other media reports and not on the show itself.
You say that no-one says anything about the work because there is nothing to say about it. I think that in the majority of cases people are saying nothing about the work because they didn't actually see it.
I know I'm swimming against the tide, really, I haven't encountered anyone else online who doesn't think the whole show was both a sham and a shame - and even Greer who superficially would appear to be arguing for it is treating it as that but trying to celebrate the fact (a bit sad), but personally I hadn't been to a contemporary exhibition in a while that impressed me so much, and I could barely care less how much the stuff's going for. To the extent that the monetary values exchanged warp the work, I think they distract from any inherent value it may have rather than substituting for it.
I guess a crystallation of this could be seen as - while you and I agree that Greer is wrong to identify the sale as more important than the exhibition, yourself and she might both disagree with me in suspecting Hirst would feel the same way about her article.
first i should perhaps sportingly blow my cover and point out that Ann Artist is a 'nom de plume'- Ann is infact many- so 'me' as in the author of these responses to your comments is not the author of the blog article. whilst a tad confusing- it should therefore be for the author - of the blog article- to comment fully on their experience in seeing or not seeing the show!
however this doesn't change the debate here- i agree Hirst might feel the same way, but he may agree with Greer in dismissing Robert Hughes and his polemic!
Agree the money involved doesnt substitute any inherent value but think it makes it difficult for a clear sight of the value.
Hirst is aware of this- he puts his finger on the sore point (this is why he is a good artist,and he is that) - the recent body of work ccertianly nods to affluence, splendour, luxury- decadence, Babylon. - e.g 'for the love of god' , the golden calf, the gold leaf working etc. So perhaps Greer is right the auction is the work? Hirst presents a Babylonian excess which reflects the greedy world we live in? Though ironically its now crashing down around us and the wine is tasting a bit sour.
On the whole though i agree with Hughes on money in art even if he is a dying breed of modernist idealists, and of course i agree with'Ann'.
Grayson Perry pointed out we get the art work we deserve - i think that sums it up about right
The author of the blog article did not see the show! As you said Wes, the media reports didn't cover the exhibition's content so much as just harp on about how unprecedented it is for an artist to jump straight to auction house and bypass the gallery. Not only was Hirst cutting out the middle man but also the potentially neutral (in the loosest sense) viewing platform for the public. And although the show was on view at Sotheby's and thousands saw it, the crux of the issue is that the work was seen in expectation of its selling price, and within that context.
It's no more interesting to me than looking round a shop filled with designer goods; shiny, factory produced - what does Hirst's work say about contemporary culture that a glossy shop display or shiny new car doesn't?
Post a Comment