BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


ICA chairman slams conceptual art

 
 
No star here laces
07:59 / 17.01.02
Concept art is pretentious tat, says ICA chief

Fiachra Gibbons, arts correspondent Thursday January 17, 2002 The Guardian

Ivan Massow, millionaire chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, last night confirmed the prejudice of the philistine masses by claiming that most conceptual art is "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat".

Mr Massow said the British art world is in "danger of disappearing up its own arse ... led by cultural tsars such as the Tate's Sir Nicholas Serota, who dominate the scene from their crystal Kremlins.

"Most concept art I see now is pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat that I wouldn't accept even as a gift."

He claimed that despite the "terrifying power" of the art establishment - "what a weirdly oxymoronic phrase that is" - he had to speak out.

"I must confess that, for a number of years, I've had a nagging voice in my head telling me it's all hype and frequently no substance. By outing this opinion in public, I realise there will be plenty of people waiting, like Madame Lafarge with her knitting needles next to the guillotine, for my head to roll into their laps."

In tomorrow's New Statesman, he even takes a pop at the queen of the scene, Tracey Emin, claiming "anyone who has met Emin knows she couldn't think her way out of a paper bag".

If it is any comfort for Emin, who could not be contacted last night, he liked her unmade bed, which most critics believe should have won the Turner Prize two years ago. He does,
however, suspect it was masterminded by her patron, Charles Saatchi.

A man of contradictions as a gay, pro-hunting, former Tory, Mr Massow, 34, defected to Labour over the Conservatives' decision to fight the abolition of Clause 28, which outlawed the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools.

He says that by uttering the "unthinkable" about contemporary art he hoped to free young artists from the yoke of "totalitarian official art" imposed by the likes of Sir Nicholas's Tate.

"It is the product of an over-indulged middle class (barely concealed behind mockney accents), bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding," he writes.
"Thousands of young artists wait in the wings to see whether the taste arbiters will relinquish their exclusive fascination with
concept art.

"It's a crime. We need art lovers to tell artists that they're not obliged to reinvent themselves into creators of piles of crap.

"We've now reached a situation where a new generation of art students go to college with the idea of becoming rich and famous like their idols Emin and Damien Hirst, to act like rock stars instead of aspiring to artistic excellence through a tangible medium.

"It seems sad that so many talented young artists, clawing to be noticed for their craft, are forced to ditch their talent and reinvent themselves as creators of video installations, or a machine that produces foam in the middle of a room."

Mr Massow berates the critics, saying they have bought into the establishment, for not showing their teeth. "Boundaries have been pushed further and further but, I wonder, isn't it all now rather piss-poor compared to the brilliant and explosive interventions of our modernist forebears?"

Sir Nicholas declined to comment last night, and the ICA -which is showing video installations of the type Mr Massow railed against - maintained a diplomatic silence on its chairman's writings.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:25 / 17.01.02
Sounds rather like a 'monstrous carbuncle' speech to me. Moreover, by saying this:

"Most concept art I see now is pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat that I wouldn't accept even as a gift."

he just shows that he doesn't really have half a clue. Conceptual art isn't about craftsmanship, or traditional figurative art. Bah. Moaning about patronage is pointless - as if artists haven't always been prey to the market.

And as for this:

"It is the product of an over-indulged middle class (barely concealed behind mockney accents), bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding," he writes.

Twart. An over-indulged middle class? This from the 'millionaire chairman of the ICA', who talks about Madame Lafarge in a public address.

Mind you, there's nothing really new here and not much to worry about - it's just Daily Mail fodder really, and you could find a critic saying exactly the same thing in every year since about 1750.
 
 
No star here laces
10:36 / 17.01.02
I do think the one interesting point that is sitting in there somewhere relates to the idea of gallery art.

There's a really interesting bit in Walter Moseley's "Gone Fishin'" when Easy Rawlins is talking to the barber of the little backwoods town he's passing through. The barber has a guitar and Easy asks him about it. The barber tells him that he plays, but not very well, and that as a city person he wouldn't understand. He says that city people hear too many good musicians, so they can't appreciate someone just playing music because they want to, and not because they excel at it.

And this kind of reminds me of conceptual art. Conceptual art has no place except for the gallery. No one would want it in their home. The point of doing it, is for it to be famous, to be different.

So, in a sense, it takes away from art the purity of just enjoying making art, whether it's going to be successful or not.

This is, I think, what the guy is bemoaning. And you're right- he does come across as a Prince Charles figure. But I think behind the ill-chosen bluster, there's maybe something quite profound.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:00 / 17.01.02
I'm not sure that I completely agree with you there... I mean, yes, of course, no one wants conceptual art in the home; it's created specifically for public spaces like galleries. I suspect that most of the art that gets bought is made in far more traditional media. So, there's still a market for artists who don't want to make conceptual art; the problem is that it is harder for them to command headlines (and let's face it, the only time art ever gets into the headlines is when someone does something that shakes people's perceptions of 'what art is/should be'). And therefore they don't get as much recognition as prominent conceptual artists. (Though actually there are relatively few artists who work on a purely conceptual level - most of them, I think, produce smaller pieces as well as big gallery ones)

But what that shows is that artists, even non-conceptual ones, who want to make a living from their work, are always engaged with some sort of market, so the idea that

it takes away from art the purity of just enjoying making art, whether it's going to be successful or not

is applicable to pretty much any piece of art which is made by someone who intends to make money for it - not just the concentration big gallery pieces.

[ 17-01-2002: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]
 
 
Saveloy
15:14 / 17.01.02
Massow has just done an interview on Radio 4 in which he explained that his beef is not with conceptual art itself, but with its dominance of the art world. He said that he'd spoken to many artists on the margins who said that they were able to get shows and make a living but they couldn't find any in-roads to the mainstream (I guess that means mainstream attention, broadsheet reviews etc).

He seemed to be back-peddling a bit on the Emin reference, said at least twice that he didn't want to attack individual artists, although he also said that he thought it meaningful that even he was nervous about giving the interview and writing the article (he sounded it, too), knowing the protection that conceptual art receives from "prominent gurus", critics, academics and art-world mafia types.

I was sorry to hear him repeat the old one about Hirst etc being "rock stars" (no they're bloody not! How many teenagers have got posters of f***ing Hirst on their walls, eh?), but liked his final comment that he'd like to see conceptual artists "reinvent themselves as ameteur philosophers" (ie "f**** off").
 
 
Tom Coates
16:14 / 17.01.02
Ouch. Don't know how to comment on this.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:17 / 17.01.02
Well, I don't entirely agree, but it's not as if the guy isn't likely basing his opinion upon hundreds of thousands of talentless, craftless, pseudointellectual concept art hacks over the past 40 years...
 
 
Tom Coates
16:29 / 17.01.02
Ok. I want to comment now.

I've met Mr Massow a few times over the last few years. When we've been in bars, he has resolutely not paid for any of the drinks. Presumably this is because he doesn't want to be taken advantage of. But it got a little irritating when I had a tenner to my name to last three weeks and (of course) was too proud to admit taht to a multi-millionaire.

He's a very strange man. Very attractive. Kind of weirdly awkward. It's kind of like he's a bit autistic - unable to relate to people on some levels and a bit of a savant in other areas. He's clearly also a bit of a bastard. He's got really big hands.

Er. Anyway - this is a completely him thing to do, but I think it's more to do with his gradual disillusionment with establishment as is, and the fact that he's not getting any younger and has a bit of a complex about being heard (I think). You know how it is - you get older, you get more frustrated by the world not conforming to your ideas of how it should be. Now multiply that by a couple of dozen sacks of money and you've got a man who's increasingly unused to the world not conforming to his every desire.

Having said all of that, he's a bit crap at talking in public and he IS a bit of a nervous sort. So I imagine he's found himself stuck in a corner and unsure how he's going to work his way out of it.

No defence of the man - but it seems to me that he's on a bit of a self-destructive kick at the moment...
 
 
netbanshee
19:44 / 17.01.02
...he's right and he's wrong...

I just hope he realizes that no amount of money can make one man's perception everyone elses reality. But hopefully, this'll just fire up at least one person to create something good in reaction. We all need catalysts...maybe this is one...
 
  
Add Your Reply