« Is there a "marriage premium" for gay men? | Main | Best Sentence of the Day »
Unusual thoughts about contemporary art
Contemporary art is highly individualistic. It is about freedom of expression, the chance to make one's mark and to speak with a distinctive voice - all characteristics of the right, rather than the left. Contemporary artists are entrepreneurs in every sense of the word. The Brit Artists of the 1990s have turned themselves into brands, selling a luxury commodity to a group of discerning purchasers. The Damian Hirst skull, retailing at £50 million, could not remotely be described as a leftwing statement, except in the sense that, like many projects of the left, it is massively over-priced and a colossal waste of money (only kidding Damian).
Here is more, hat tip to www.bookforum.com.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 2, 2007 at 05:17 AM in The Arts | Permalink
Comments
Interesting point well made. The charateristics you assign to 'Brit Artists' echo their effective patron Charles Saatchi who made his money in advertising.
Posted by: nick at Dec 2, 2007 5:27:37 AM
"it is massively over-priced and a colossal waste of money" And this doesn't apply to all high priced art exactly why?
Posted by: Cynical Masters Student at Dec 2, 2007 5:28:10 AM
The Italian Point of View. The "average Italian" generally say
that "contemporary art" is an incomprehensible conundrum.
Damien Hirst's Four Evangelists were shown in Rome... to the indifference of
the whole city and beyond.
Posted by: sabina at Dec 2, 2007 6:24:24 AM
"Contemporary art is highly individualistic. It is about freedom of expression, the chance to make one's mark and to speak with a distinctive voice - all characteristics of the right, rather than the left."
Huh? What kind of upside-down universe is it where these are characteristics of the right? Certainly they're not typical of the right in 21st century America.
Posted by: at Dec 2, 2007 9:37:52 AM
''Contemporary art is highly individualistic. It is about freedom of expression, the chance to make one's mark and to speak with a distinctive voice - all characteristics of the right, rather than the left.''
There are both authoritarian and indivdualistic aspects within the right and left, I wouldn't say the quoted characteristics are more right than left. The article also argues that the contemporary art is apolitical. And artists making money is hardly anything new.
Posted by: Phil at Dec 2, 2007 9:45:58 AM
'Huh? What kind of upside-down universe is it where these are characteristics of the right? Certainly they're not typical of the right in 21st century America.'
The article was written from a UK view point, but I don't see those characteristics as belonging exclusively to the right.
Posted by: Phil at Dec 2, 2007 9:49:50 AM
Next week in the Guardian blogs: why feminism is rightwing. It's individualistic, it's about freedom, and it encourages venturing into the workplace to make money.
The following week, you can look forward to a column on why voting is leftwing (it's collectivist and non-market), so you can expect voters who engage in politics to increasingly support leftwing positions.
Posted by: Blar at Dec 2, 2007 12:50:53 PM
Translation: "It's not OUR fault - blame the right!"
Posted by: Todd Fletcher at Dec 2, 2007 1:34:44 PM
I wouldn't get too worked up about the essay. The 'contemporary art is right wing' is just a catchy hook to draw attention (and it is working!), and shout not be taken as the product of a real analysis.
Posted by: Mike G at Dec 2, 2007 2:43:47 PM
Well, I think you're right, Mike. Or shall I say "not wrong", instead, just to
avoid any misunderstandings...
Posted by: sabina at Dec 2, 2007 5:39:19 PM
Perhaps it's important also to remember that the British right is still left to us. And I have a couple friends living in NYC and working in art or art history and they completely disagree with him, so perhaps it's also just a product of the environment this guy is in.
I also agree with the above that these characteristics of the "right" aren't really characteristics of the right.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 2, 2007 6:51:25 PM
What a fatuous article: "X is right-wing/left-wing. Discuss." It's a fertile source of column inches, but not of good ideas. Some of my favorite (i.e. most ridiculous) values of X have been Voldemort, George Lucas' Empire, special relativity, and now contemporary art.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Dec 2, 2007 8:18:59 PM
If art were merely “about freedom of expression, the chance to make one's mark and to speak with a distinctive voice” how would we distinguish between art and craft, or good art and bad art? You might argue that art, or at least contemporary art, is purely subjective and that no such distinction is possible but you would then have to puzzle over the fact that the consensus is in fact widespread. Perhaps that reflects nothing more than flocking behavior but there is a far better explanation, which few laymen recognize.
Like economics or mathematics, art is about art. The criteria for recognition is no different than any other academic pursuit, you must say something new and important about art as judged by experts that understand the field.
For thousands of years, artists puzzled over techniques for representation until that area of exploration reached stagnation with Mannerism. Luckily, cameras arrived soon afterward, raising questions about the need for representation through art. That lead to 100 years of questioning, “What is art? (If it’s not techniques for representation) and produced perhaps the most prolific exploration of the subject ever. Impressionists began by loosening representation and this movement again reached stagnation with abstract expressionism in the fifties.
Luckily, Andy Warhol arrived to introduce conceptualism by showing that art was neither technique, subject matter or, in some regards, creativity. He mass produced soup can label after all! The world exploded with concepts from minimalism to instruction painting and everything in between. But umpteen hundred concepts later, who cares if the art world adds one more concept, a concept that appears as “freedom of expression” and the “chance to speak with a distinctive voice?” That doesn’t contribute further to our understanding of, “What is art?” it’s simply a further expression of stagnation.
Why then Hirst, Koons and a few others? Perhaps for no other reason, than when no further breakthrough seemed possible they represent the closest thing we have to breakthroughs. Mere PR and marketing breakthroughs? A big shark surely raises that very question. But maybe that was all the last gasp before stagnation could have. Or maybe, all that’s left at this point is to be entertained by what is brilliantly clever. Surely they excel at that level too.
Koon’s Balloon Dog is like a modern Pietà, Steel that appears light as a feather like Michelangelo’s marble chiffon; minimalism instead of detail; a pop image replacing a religious one; modern humor instead of the sacred. Yet both are remarkable works of art upon which there is widespread consensus. What more could you ask for?
As for most of the rest, what you describe as (mere) “freedom of expression", just remember, as Mat Gleason so aptly put it, “Most Art Sucks.”
Posted by: EWC@BC at Dec 2, 2007 8:55:27 PM
Is this not a circular definition? If we leave alone the weird "self expression is a virtue of the right" part, all that is left of the argument is 'the most succesfull artists are the ones that get paid the most. They get paid the most, so they are succesful entrepeneurs. Succesful entrepeneurs belong to the politcal right. So artist are rightists'.
Let's try this on another subject. Calls for tax increases for the rich stem from deep worry about the health of society. They are about balanced budgets- a characteristic of the right, rather than the left. The most succesful proponents of tax increases are worth billions. Warren Buffet is hardly a left-wing agitator.
Therefore, tax increases for the rich are part of the political right.
Posted by: Great Zamfir at Dec 3, 2007 4:14:03 AM
LET'S GET BACK TO MP mr VAIZEY'S EXTREMELY CONFUSED ARTICLE.
Individualism has been a characteristic of artists at least since the XVII cent.
when in Rome a score of painters were commissioned, and executed also without
being asked for, together with religious works, non-religiuous works as well
(still life, landscapes etc.). At that time they struggled to live
out of such meagre commissions.
When in the XIX cent. Rome faded as a centre of art production, there came Paris.
It was in Paris that we may say the artist became an entrepreneur. He had to
look after the taste of the public, and did not depend directly on (the state)
or the church commissions. The French too publicised though a "national" idea:
le temps libre (la grande jatte, le petit dejeuner sur l'herbe, etc.).
Then came New York: pop art mainly. Consumerism at the top level. A sort of
iconographc slavery dominated: Brillo... Campbell's Soup... and so on.
So what's new with this Brit, especially in comparison with the New York school?
Tough entrepreneurship and tough freedom of expression as far as iconography
is concerned. Nothing new though: the Brit have always been the freer European
nattion. During the second half of the past century they dominated the fashion
and music scenes.
Now is the turn(er) of art.
Posted by: sabina at Dec 3, 2007 2:05:15 PM
AND GOING ON...
yes, I guess Brit art, and maybe "contemporary art", considered
as the western side of of art currently colonised by the Brits,
overall is righwing. In a sense that it is opposed to POP (popular) art,
and therefore strongly "elitist".
Posted by: sabina at Dec 3, 2007 4:26:51 PM
FURTHER... AND MAYBE FINAL UNUSUAL THOUGHTS ABOUT ART
You may easily hang a Marilyn on your apartment's wall. Likewise find a corner for a few Brillo boxes to stand. Much harder is finding the right place for a "diamonded" skull or a "formaldheyded" shark. When you get tired of your Marilyn or of your Brillo boxes you may easily trow them into a dumpster. Art historian would not forever miss a sample of 20th century art: Marilyns and Brillo boxes are all over the places... When you get tired of your "diamonded" skull you may always sell the diamond and use the skull to play Hamlet. You will never dispose of your "formaldheyded" shark: either because you would need to call a truck to bring it to the dumpster or because like it or not it is a unique art object. The London tea party.
Posted by: sabina at Dec 7, 2007 1:18:03 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now, is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Tonny at Mar 18, 2008 4:55:16 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 11:17:41 PM
