The word ‘concept’ has been dirtied by art
critics who don’t fathom pure ideas as replacements for technical skill, and a
generational overanalyses of contemporary art by both artists and those who try
to ‘get it’.
A preview written by critic, Brian Sewell for
Tracey Emin’s retrospective at the Hayward Gallery in 2011 shows combinations
of snobbery and personal taste as the cruxes of the idea problem.[1] Sewell’s point sees both
intellect and experience as materials to work with, as important as the paint
or canvas. This is hypocritical unless his point is that idea generation must
consider its audience and not be elitist; which it is not.
BBC2’s ‘Show Me the Monet’ first broadcast in
2011 showed the public not only how broadly ideas can be transferred into
visually very good or ‘bad’ works of art, but how you can look at types of art in very different ways. The
biggest commendation goes to the judges: an author, art dealer and contemporary
critic. The criticisms they give using their professional careers as
justifications, gives the public an idea of how vast the creative industry
actually is. And how being in a different field can change the way you have to think.
Both the hobby-fulfilling and formally trained
artists who entered had their own reasons for making their work, and generally
the personal pieces or portraits did not sell. It is a theory that successful
idea-generation must have a balance of business-like social etiquette, but the
pleasure-seeker’s sense of humour; be it light or dark, to go on somebody’s
wall. What is interesting about twenty-first century art and design is the blurring
of what used to separate affairs: home décor, street design/graphics and the iconography
of those in the media. Both the need for and dismissal of cultural values based
on personality and most interestingly, taste.
David Lee from the BBC series describes his
natural responses to art as the ‘reactionary’ or ‘common sense ‘approach. As a
key figure in the production of ‘The Jackdaw’ magazine, he has been
unfavourably associated with the ‘Stuckists’ movement as a misery-guts. What is
interesting is his appraisal of illustration in the programme which the other
judges dismiss as fine art[2]. Author Charlotte Mullins
disagrees: ‘(illustration) belongs in a Sunday supplement’, as does dealer Roy
Bolton: ‘It belongs in a children’s book’.
Which introduces another important argument in
this exploration: the new exhibitionism illustration has found to challenge its
relationship with fine art.
‘Originality is the backbone of any great
artist. If it’s been done to death already why should anybody pay attention?’
–Roy Bolton’s statement here is the clincher.
If we are being pushed for newness, can a new
type of idea-based work act as an economical solution which does not hold the
same stigma as ‘conceptual’ modern art?
Design is primarily concerned with people’s choices
and fundamental, universal communication. This is the reason illustration
neither sinks nor swims. It balances luxury of style with manufactured purpose
and destination known.
In relation to film-art but agreeing the rules
are similar across the art board; the new ‘Tanks’ curators at the Tate Modern
trust that drama solves most problems, maybe even creating a problem to get a
more refined solution. They say ‘there is a fear of making things for the hell
of it’, which adding drama solves. It’s possible that this contemporary
attitude encourages more design, and good at that. But the definition of good
is by no means a clear one.
Stapling genres to your ideas is insignificant
as far as art curriculums go; however Sam Ainsley of the Glasgow art teachers
community admits that ‘the context is half the work’ and thus being sheltered
by an art-school is not as vital as it was in the Bauhaus era.
An idea is no longer measured by its formal values,
but measured in impact. Something deliberately shallow-looking but which
maintains all-encompassing depth. In an interview in the London Evening
Standard in 2009, curator Hans-Ulrich Obrist reminded us of what we all like to
pretend we don’t know[3]. The intimidating philosophy
that success comes from ideas in ideas in yet more ideas: To be good, you have to
know everything. Bringing us back to Sewell’s postmodern intelligence mantra
and the depressing fact it is not quite out-of-date.
Ultimately then, ideas are quietly lethal if
they are supposed to be as transient as they could make your career.
[1] ‘(her work) -a not uncommon subject in
Renaissance painting, an allegory of prostitution and an opportunity for mild
pornography tinged with wry male humour - but, as Miss Emin shows no evidence
of education, it is to be doubted that she knows of it and the kinship of
imagery is mere coincidence.’
[2] ‘The vast majority of us like looking at a narrative picture. I
don’t use the term illustration as abuse. Illustration can be included in fine
art exhibitions. It is frequently.’
[3] ‘Art is my home base, I have always worked in art but if you want
to understand the forces that affect visual art, you must also know about
science, architecture, literature, dance, music and so on.’
No comments:
Post a Comment