perception
and reception of art in england
During
the early 90's in this country, the general public became increasingly aware that
people still make this stuff called art. The last time art gained such a wide
public, or rather notoriety, was the Tate gallery's purchase of Carl Andre's 'Bricks'
during the mid 70's. It was front page news then, and 25 years later, it is still
fondly remembered in England, and could well be the second most famous work of
art in this country.
Then
there was a long gap, where nobody made art at all, apart from the odd piece by
Gilbert and George, but they were a bit odd too, Hockney was alive, somewhere,
Sigmund Freud's grandson painted fat people, and 'that awful painter' Bacon was
prowling around London.
Jeff Koons in typically reverent pose. Photo by Gerardo Somoza [1].
Now and then, the press
would pick up on a few Americans too, either peeing in beakers or dropping basketballs
into fish tanks. The 'art star' began to rise in Schnabel, Kostabi, Koons, and
(for some reason) Clemente, and died in its original form in Warhol; they appeared
on the covers of glossies, went to the right parties, befriended film stars and
made huge amounts of cash.
Now
we have some in England, headed by Hirst, and suddenly art is alive and throbbing.
From Greece to Italy, onto France and Northern Europe, the focus of art began
to zigzag all over the shop while fascism spread across Europe like a disease.
The Americans came along and blew it all up (hey where were you guys!?). British
artists either stayed with their eccentric direction, appalled at abstract art,
or did Brit versions of American pop, something that would have been impossible
to ignore since it just looked too much fun to do.
Artist Damien Hirst (photo by Catherine McGann) [2].
Art is a much more global conversation now, and not consigned to movements in
particular countries, but for the first time ever perhaps, something distinctive
is happening (or happened) in this country. Artists went out, and continue to
do so, and DIY'd it; curating shows, opening galleries, sleeping with the right
people, appearing on magazine covers and swearing on the telly.
There
are more art galleries in the square mile of the East End than there are McDonalds
in the whole of McLondon [3]. Artist-run galleries and spaces spring up and disappear
constantly, relying on a simple listing in Time Out, their friends and family,
and the all important review or visit. There was and is no movement as such, no
direction, just a will to work, gather resources and enjoy, and, make good art
[4].
Every November,
for the last fifteen years or so, the exposure of art comes to a peak as the annual
Turner Prize is awarded 'to an artist showing outstanding artistic achievement
by a young British artist' or something. There has always been a sloppy sub heading
for the £20,000 prize, which probably reflects the situation here perfectly.
Contestants
this year included artists born in Japan, Holland and Germany, but nobody cares
really, or at least I don't. They work here, and that's enough. The Turner Prize
ceremony and exhibition, complete with live TV , is adored by the tabloids, who
rub their hands with glee. It is also garnished with protesters outside, mainly
by students, cold and drunk, or confused 'radicals', but the whole thing does
expose art to the general public, even if the tabloids allow themselves to blindly
ignore much of the talent on show, in the knowledge that the skeptical 'Great
British Public' will comply implicitly [5].
Chris Olifi: "Artist who works with Elephant Dung wins Turner Prize"
shouted the headlines in 1998. Ofili doesn't work exclusively as a painter. The
piece below, bag of shit, is a brown paper shopping bag filled with elephant
dung. Image: Osterwalder's Art Office, Hamburg [6].
Artists
are now household names, though their materials; 'unmade beds', 'sawn-up cows'
and 'dung' come first. But that's fine. It's the way things work in England, and
I think we like it that way. You often hear that artists and curators, dealers
and gallery owners need to 'educate' the public in what art's all about. But it's
not about anything in particular, so how would you start? Nobody needs to 'educate'
the general public, but we do have to say that everyone's invited, that is really
the only important matter.
This
is what the Turner Prize wants to do, but it will always battle against the tabloids
constantly reminding the public that art is going to be above their heads. In
the major cities in England, though especially in London, going to look at art
is as popular as ever. You can't move for art galleries and artists in the capital,
and to say you're an artist in East London is fast becoming very dull and embarrassing,
the look of 'Oh God, why can't I meet an accountant one day' spreading over their
faces (don't worry - they're coming).
So
what happens when you open an art exhibition in a large conservative town instead,
in the heart of Middle England, where no art galleries exist? (There are a couple
here, but very poor ones) And what happens when one or two of the pieces have
already sparked controversy in London and the national newspapers? And what happens
when the works in question, involve a world famous princess, buried 6 miles away?
I don't know yet, but I'm about to find out, with the show I'm curating, called
'Dogleg'. With no direct contact with international or even national contemporary
art, will the show that I'm curating, only go to prove that art and artists are
merely out to upset and confound, or will people come and enjoy?
Alison Jackson, diana, camilla and charles 1998 From 'Mental Images'
1998, the same series of works that includes the Diana and Dodi piece [7].
The particular work
in question is Alison Jackson's photographic triptych, "Diana, Dodi and Child'
from her 'Mental Images' series, 1998. Using lookalikes, it depicts Diana and
Dodi sitting together, holding out their child in front of them in a Carravagio/Hello!
type composition. The child stares out of the picture, while the parents gaze
lovingly at him/her. Quite simply, it's a brilliant piece of work.
This
was one of the two major reasons for wanting it to be part of Dogleg. The other
reason was that it would work alongside some of the other work involved, especially
my own, [8] and contradict others. I wanted works which bounced off each other,
agreeing and disagreeing in equal measure. I had one more artist to make up the
six that I wanted, and this was perfect. So that was that then, I'll ring her
up.
Then I remembered,
Dogleg will be in Northamptonshire, where Diana is buried, and suddenly I had
a small problem. As a curator, you're not interested in courting controversy for
its own sake. But I feel I may be heading for it. I've had meetings postponed
with councils, things put off, delayed, changed. I understand their doubts, as
this is an odd choice of venue for this show [9].
A
major part of the impetus in curating Dogleg, is to help further the discussions
I have opened up with the council, in establishing a serious art gallery for the
town, and much will rest on the success of this show. I could have pulled the
piece of course, as was indirectly suggested to me by various councilors. It would
have made things easier, but what would that have said? It is in the councils
mandate to be wary of such things, but they have finally seen fit, as I'm sure
the public will, that the piece is relevant, witty and complex, but that it is
not denigrating to Diana, or Dodi. So they should be commended.
I
do have a role in persuading this untested public, in the way that I persuaded
myself, that I didn't pick this piece to create a scandal, but I don't feel obliged
to teach. Against the other works involved, I am confident that the majority of
people will understand, on a variety of levels, and get something from the show,
though I'm not so confident in how the media will prefer to present it. You can
always predict what the media will say, but you can never predict what people
actually think.
Robert
Wornum
More information about Dogleg can be found at http://www.filler.demon.co.uk
Part
2 of the ongoing saga - the joys of dealing with councils, is here.
footnotes
[1]
Source: http://www.altculture.com/aentries/k/koonsxj.html
[2]
Source: http://www.altculture.com/aentries/d/damxhirst.html
[3]
This is a guess.
[4]
Wouldn't want to ignore the patrons, who have been instrumental, but that's another
story.
[5] A
typical example was found in The Evening Standard about one of the contenders
for the Turner Prize 2000, Tomoko Takahashi, known for her installations that
use everyday rubbish, junk and doodles where the paper asked bin men in London
to create their own work of art, and they made a pretty good job of it too.
[6] Source: http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/visart/visart_12021998_turner.html
[7]
Source: http://www.filler.demon.co.uk/dogleg/jackson.htm
[8]
I'm painting a series of 64 pseudo photo-realistic family portraits based on the
photographs displayed at my parents house.
[9]
Coincidence really. Had to come back from London to my folks house to help look
after my father.
Back
to top
