Nedenstående debattant fra Independent tar opp et
ytterst påtrengende tema: at nåtidens "kunst" har
degenerert til ren fabrikasjon av
investeringsobjekter som kunstnerisk og menneskelig
sett rett og slett er som spekulasjonsboblenes tomme
aksjeselskaper. Dagens "kunst" er sponsorreklame og
investeringsobjekter, og som sådan 100 pst. konform
og uten gnist av samfunnskritisk potensiale. Den er
dessuten uttrykk for et formalistisk smakstyranni som
grenser tett opp til ren stalinisme. Man må til den
teoretiske pedagogikken for å finne noe verre.
Karsten Johansen
Ivan Massow: I defend my right to question the value
of today's art
'Like a virus, conceptual art may grow to become
little more than the dot.com of the art world'
29 January 2002
Massow likely to be sacked as ICA chief after
criticising art
My fate as chairman of the Institute of Contemporary
Arts will be decided at 6.30pm this evening by the
Grandees of the ICA Council when they meet in the
splendid, panelled Brandon Rooms at the top of the
Institute's elegant headquarters in Whitehall. They
will be meeting – they'd hoped in secret – to decide
whether someone who can describe "some" concept art
as "craftless tat" should be allowed to continue to
hold the rank of ICA chairman.
The trouble all started a week ago, the day the New
Statesman ran an article in which I expressed my
personal opinions on contemporary British art and
asked whether our conceptual artists were pushing the
boundaries of artistic achievement or were simply
pushing the limits of our gullibility. Since
expressing those views I have been overwhelmed by the
response I have received, from e-mails and letters to
people stopping me in the street. Much to my
surprise, it has been almost exclusively supportive,
if not always so much in agreement with my opinions
as in agreeing about the importance of debate.
However, this has not been the response from the arts
establishment. An eerie wall of silence has
descended. Last year Nicholas Serota had £26m of
public money to spend on art. With huge pressure on
public institutions across the board to show that
they provide the taxpayer with value for money, why
should art be treated any differently? When
challenged to respond, Nicholas Serota has favoured a
monarchic silence, but he seems to forget that he's
not the Queen but a public servant.
Indeed, it all seems to be giving credence to my
suspicions about Conceptualism becoming the new
"official art". But before the ICA Politburo cry
"treason" and send me to the Tyburn gallows to be
hung, drawn and quartered, I ask that I may put the
case for my defence.
In the article I likened conceptual art to Soviet-era
socialist realism in that it is authorised and
promoted at the cost of other, competing styles.
After all, it does seem to be endorsed by Downing
Street and sponsored by big business – in other words
it is an investment medium, which should not come as
too much of a shock in our increasingly
commercialised world. But if we are to place material
value on things, we must look at how those value
judgements are made and by whom.
There is much conceptual art that I enjoy, but I feel
that we are now in danger of moving towards a
situation where talent is no longer a criterion. This
is worrying for the future of art in this country.
Will tomorrow's students, when filling in art school
application forms, write about their desire to "vent
angst and expose their underwear" rather than aspire
to what many may call the old-fashioned ideal of
artistic excellence? What is wrong with suggesting
that we encourage other forms of contemporary art so
that conceptual art can develop within the broader
contemporary arts scene? Surely, if we don't it will
grow. like a virus, to become little more than the
dot.com of the art world. The parallels between
advocates of conceptual art and the dot.com pirates
who plundered our pension funds are there for
everyone to see. The arts élite have invested so much
of their reputation (and cash) in defence of concept
art that they find themselves unable to criticise it.
Frankly conceptual art , although great fun
originally, has become dull. I felt myself yawning
through this year's Turner prize ("oh look, this
video installation has a film of someone smoking
backwards!"). The problem is, it has no answers – it
is merely intellectual masturbation. Viewers are
endowed with the compliment that they can find
meaning in it that the artist had never spotted. They
explain away the lack of talent by explaining that it
reflects what's going on in our chaotic, brutal and
transient society (like society has never been in the
past...). But as much fun, or personally rewarding,
as it may be to get it – we still must step back at
some point and ask whether the amateurish
psychological musing of some mockney Gilbert and
George stalker, are really delivering what we need
from art.
After all, we live in a society where a collective
atheism has left people crying out for "answers" from
culture and art. Perhaps I'm being hopelessly
idealistic, but I want art to move from pure
linguistics and subjective philosophical theories,
and evolve into something that aspires to elevate the
spirit and alters minds.
Last week, when I created "Concept Gun": a toy gun I
wrapped in lime green synthetic material and had
delivered to the ICA in a wicker basket, I invited
them to dispatch me cleanly and humanely with it – if
they feel that I have gone too far by starting the
debate.
As an art lover and patron and being ICA chairman for
the past three years, I have been introduced to a
huge number of artists, visited countless galleries
and exhibitions who want this debate. I defend my
right to be able to have opinions and express them.
The writer has been chairman of the ICA since 1999
______________________________________________________________________________
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet !
vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP...
http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST