Frequently Asked Questions
or more accurately, occasionally asked questions
THE ART WORLD
Towards the end of his life Pablo Picasso admitted that from the time of Cubism onwards he did not consider himself to be an Artist. Having realised that the more ridiculous and outrageous the work he produced was the more the dealers and buyers paid him, he settled for that.
There are still art experts, critics, pedagogues, commentators, 'artists', etc. displaying their truly astounding wisdom, knowledge and judgement by telling us what a great genius Picasso was.
Picasso clearly didn't agree.
Perhaps, they might suggest, the genius Picasso didn't know what he was talking about.
Or could there be another explanation?
Bright kids who show a liking for art are firmly guided away and into the sciences. The art subjects are sink subjects, routinely used as a dumping ground. (Over the years I have seen far more artistic ability amongst science specialists than I ever have in the 'art world'.)
In art colleges you will find a small number of earnest triers, a smaller number with some ability, and a clueless majority. That's the staff dealt with, but the same is true of the students - the clueless majority sitting in for a cheap degree.
Most people who go to art college (and go on to become teachers, lecturers, administrators, critics, etc.) do so not because of any real interest or ability in art but rather because they are useless at pretty much everything but want a degree and a career, and the easiest of degrees is in fine art and the careers that tolerate the highest levels of incompetence are in the arts and the media.
As a direct consequence the 'art world' is thoroughly dominated by fools and charlatans.
An example; I would imagine that in a random group of say 100 people well over half would identify, say, Jackson Pollock as a 'great artist' (although most would regard his work as trash), but it is unlikely that any would identify, say, Dorothea Tanning, or Pierre Roy at all (although most would probably find their work worthwhile and intriguing). Dorothea Tanning and Pierre Roy - both accomplished Artists and 'unknown', Jackson Pollock - a talentless chancer and world renowned on the back of years of incessant touting on his behalf by weak-minded, impressionable arty-farties incapable of discriminating between Art and garbage.
However nothing that happens in the 'art world' matters much.
If a fool or a charlatan puts, say, a dead shark in a tank and pretends that it is art, it doesn't really matter.
If a gullible or slippery gallery owner or manager puts it on display and calls it art, it doesn't really matter.
If a collector or curator with more money than sense buys it and calls it art, it doesn't really matter.
If a dumb or supine critic or art historian calls it art, it doesn't really matter.
If a foolish or spineless pedagogue misleads, it doesn't really matter that much.
None of these things will make a dead shark in a tank art, and the filter of time will flush out this and much of the rest of the ineffable crap that is so often offered up to us by vacuous trendies as art.
What really matters in the here and now is, for example, that the gas fitter knows how to make an airtight seal, that the pilot knows how to fly, that the bin-men collect our household refuse. (In passing, how many of the arty-farties could you trust to collect the refuse or sweep the streets and get it right?)
From the point of view of society the antics of the 'art world' are a minor and occasional diversion, and the amount of public money made available for the support of art and artists through grants and tax concessions is comparatively small.
(Even so it should be going into the pockets of artists rather into the pockets of the fools and charlatans.)
As you can see I'm not a politician or a diplomat, and I could go on about this for hours and hours.*
(" '.... counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...' Death's too good for them." to quote Douglas Adams, from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.)
So here instead is
Hans Christian Andersen's 'The Emperor's New Clothes',
An extract from Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn',
Flanders & Swann's 'P** P* B**** B** D******',
Woody Guthrie's version of 'Little Boxes',
an article from The Guardian (surprisingly),
a Peter Brookes cartoon,
Jake Thackray's 'The Bull',
and, by way of an antidote,
a selection of artwork by other exhibitors at the 2005 Florence Biennale.
*(Post script) Notwithstanding the above I have gone on about this in the
cover story of June 2005's Mensa Magazine.
THE MEDIA
In our brave new world where every empty-headed chatterer has a newspaper column, a chat show, an arts programme or a radio phone-in dumbing down proceeds apace; in a misapplication of the concept of 'egalitarianism' all are encouraged to consider themselves expert (incidentally - going off at a tangent, have you noticed how those keenest on assertiveness training are those least in need of it? Or how those who prosper on the back of ambition automatically assume the mask of ability?).
Specialists only in superficial verbiage, misrepresenters by ignorance or design, the media chatterati adore two art stories which they repeat ad nauseam:-
'The Artist As Soap Opera Character'
In which an attention seeker with nothing of merit to offer in exchange for the attention they crave is accorded the status of artist on the back of a proclaimed desire to be an artist and a sad, and frequently unpleasant life. This story has been around for decades - the only thing new about 'celebrity culture' is its prevalence.
'Let's See What These Wacky Artists Are Up To Now'
in which the most laughable piece of currently trendy nonsense is held up for gentle ridicule, but in which the bubbly presenter lacking the knowledge, the understanding or the confidence - or any combination of the three, manages no more than a half raised eyebrow and a would be wry delivery. The sum total being little other than free publicity, and the consequent effective endorsement of the nonsense as art
When was the last time you saw an 'art programme' where the presenter kept quiet?
Visual art is all about looking.
DRUGS
It is sometimes suggested to me that the imagination displayed in my work must result from the taking of drugs.
Not so.
Although I attended art college when drug taking was rife any peer pressure directed at me was resisted.
Without exception all the committed drug takers I have met have been unremitting bores.
For the record I have never taken any illegal substances.
Apart from run of the mill prescribed medicines and over the counter remedies the only 'drugs' I have ever taken are -
tobacco (cigars & pipe tobacco, intermittently from 1971 to 1982, and not at all since),
alcohol (occasionally and in moderation),
coffee (or more accurately mildly flavoured & discoloured hot water, almost constantly),
tea (seldom, except when visiting and then by the litre),
and Irn Bru (when I can get it).
SIDDALL AND CHAOS
|
