that's not what art is about. it's what investment in art
is all about, but I have always enjoyed it when , say,
the mother of a Romanian art thief chucked millions
of euros of evidence into the fireplace.
Bonfire of the Vanities anyone?
Anyway, i have been noticing that this latest wave of
modern art, witnessed in the Chapmans, Damien Hirst
and the-bird-with-the-cum-stained-bed, oh ya, Tracey Emin.
It looks like their time, historically speaking, is coming to an
end and some of them are flailing about in public. Hirst and his
"dealer" have been know to pump and dump on the market.
Others have committed artistic suicide. Hirst again, tried to
paint realistic likenesses and they were sh*t. He got his
ego served to him in a dirty ashtray.
Now there's a whole show in the Tate Modern that is as
stale as the piss in their bathrooms. It's called Art Under
Attack. It claims that iconoclasts are those who wreck
art, and then the modern artists place themselves and their
work next to art that was wrecked for political or religious
reasons, not because the art was worthless tat.
Cromwell hanging upside down
Catholic art wrecked in the Reformation
painting of Canterbury Cathedral after a Puritan attack
from the Guardian:
"the Tate can't really champion art vandals as artists
without sounding hypocritical".
the wreckers are the artists now.
"the studiously ambivalent, pretentious way the rest of the
show explores modern attacks on art"
"if you scribble your name on any of the works here, you
will be prosecuted. Unless you are Jake and Dinos Chapman
and can afford to buy the art you plant to insult. Then it's
As Jonathan Jones said, they should have included the
Umanets graffiti on the Rothko blandscape. Or something
maybe the new boys are taking the piss out of art shows
because they're pompous excuses for showiness that
are cobbled together with no sense of coherence anyway.
well, they won that argument. Their show is a
duck duck go this one: Review- is it smart to smash up art?
Jonathan Jones Guardian