Byline: School of Saatchi show helps Modernist art trip off its own plinth.
It's amazing how an innocent copy-cat show, feeding off the reality frenzy may actually lead to the art world getting back some semblance of balance between innovation and 'talent'.
If Modernist art is a reaction to the drudgery of old-fart art, like Monet and Manet,
then its driving force is certainly Mon-ey.
However, it has to
articulate its raison d'etre, sooner or later. It cannot just be
'I hate that technically-brilliant sh*t'.
However, in this time of
rampant bullsh*t in all spheres public, especially in nodes of power and money, modernist artists have
avoided being
pidgeon-holed themselves, probably because they can feel the
rubber glove of shame passing nearby. However, there is a maxim in life that I live by:
As they shat on others, they too shall be shat upon.
It should be in the Bible.
They've pocketed a lot of money in a
market driven by
investment and investors, like Charles Saatchi. They made their field, their own mythology and their shit did not even stink. They knew that avoiding description was as important as avoiding death. I think these artists' luck is running out, though.
Once the rebels become the institution, then they're ready to get
knocked off. Their egos and bank accounts are inflated, and their annihilation is coming, as others can start smelling blood.
I'll give you an example. It's been uncovered that the 'rampant sales figures' of Damien Hirst have been faked by his agent and a particular gallery, in order to keep his prices up.
[pics coming soon]
When British tv put on the School of Saatchi, they used some of the vilified installation artists, like Tracey Emin [pics soon] to judge and critique new, rising artists, and they put some necks in the guillotine, those of the installation artists. (I'll soon post some of the well-considered criticism later)
The basis of it is that when Emin says: "that's a piece of crap", she should know what she's talking about, having been the generator of so much of that sort of stuff herself.
When the chosen professional art critics asked the 'new' artists 'what's the thinking behind the art' before passing judgement on a piece, then they're saying that art is supposed to be an
intellectualisation of the world not an expression of
passion. In other words, it's not about art, but about '
me so crafty'. Therefore, because modern art now has a
defineable belief system, it's a
movement like any other, and a
piss-poor one, at that.
I think it all started with a French artist's urinal (below). The piss receptacle was presented as art; not as form following function, which would have been more intelligent, just as a reaction to art that actually required talent, or the ability to actually
make some
handiwork. This guy just went to Plumbings R Us and asked for the ceramics department and then scribbled something on the stand-up unit, in marker. [this begs a feminist response: piddling standing up. Ever seen that at parties?]
-Cos67 ~(%^D>
UPDATE:
a writer named
muema (see his explanation below in the 'comments') has advised me that the French artist was Marcel Duchamp .
I think he'll agree that what he said proved that modern/Modernist art is far too intellectual and they were more concerned about showing
intellect rather than artistic ability or
vision, or even passion. They're a bunch of cold fish.
ALSO: in looking for a pic of the Yur-I-nal (as it's pronounced over here) in question, I found this interesting explanation on
found art: [
comments- Cos67]
"In 1917, when Marcel Duchamp presented a urinal—which he had christened Fountain—as a signed piece of art, he was reacting to the horror of the First World War [ya! it's a Messerschmidt urinal. Get it?-xD Cos67] and the utter collapse of the gentlemanly notions of progress [urinal is better than piss-pot, you know? especially once it's been hooked up to the plumbing- Cos67], beauty and aesthetics that accompanied the slaughter of the generation. [Well, in that case, I hope he chose a used urinal, nice and stinky, with cigarette butts and gum in it. A soldier's skull with a helmet and cigarette would have worked better. or a akak gun shooting blood. -Cos67] Fountain was notorious, and the art world was aghast. Interpretations of Duchamp’s work, and the whole concept of found art, were flowing as freely as an overflowing toilet. But when is a urinal not a urinal? And if it isn’t a urinal, what the hell is it? Fountain was a symbol of ambiguity in very ambiguous times [nice piece of philosophical bullshit]; it is whatever the viewer’s reaction makes it. [How about that for arse-backwards. Now, instead of examining the art, you gotta spend more time examining your own feelings or looking at the people around you in the gallery. Sociopathic sh*t, man. -Cos67] That is the nature of found art."
[otherwise known as 'look what the cat dragged in'-xD Cos67]
[Nick Mamatas on http://www.gadflyonline.com/10-08-01/art-devilphoto.html]I still see this as a branch of realia, and not art.
I'm confused. Muema said it was a reaction against art critics! I think the common message to both warmongers and art critics is
"piss on yuz all!" or more simply, "piss off!".
It's the metaphorical equivalent of
the ancient British insult of throwing
the contents of a piss-pot on someone you hate.
The man is brilliant.
--> on http://www.artnewsblog.com/2004/12/duchamps-urinal.htm
e.g. "[Fountain, the] ready-made urinal has been voted the
most influential work of art of all time by 500 art experts."
checkitout:
BBC documentary: The Quest for Beauty
Even though this is a tempest in a tea-cup, I think it's one great slam-dunk in the face of manufactured culture.
