oil on canvas
122 X 61 cms
There is another Richard Price whose work looks quite interesting.
And another whose doesn't.
Baffled about how to respond? Don't give up. Read regularly WHAT THE HECK IS ART? and fight back!
Lost in the gutter of Cubism, Modernism, Post-modernism, Expressionism, Dadaism and other rubbishisms? Find real art at the ARC.
They can't draw or paint or create a half-decent artwork but are worshiped by the art establishment as Gods. We prefer to remain infidels and refuse to kowtow to the False Gods of Art.
One expects art to ennoble our souls, much like a novel by Victor Hugo or a film by Bimal Roy. Instead, stepping into a gallery is like stepping on shit -bullshit.
We smack down these smug bastards and their idiotic art-jargonese con mucho gusto!
The decision made by the Institute of Contemporary Arts, known to all as the ICA, that rather odd attractive (on the outside) building on the Mall, to hold a satellite discussion with a member of Hamas, the group that has been designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union (and its members) as well as everyone who has ever had any dealings with it (and that includes members of the other Palestinian groups) is, nevertheless, problematic. For one thing, this does not even pretend to be any form of art. Well, all right, a political discussion may be of some importance even if it has no artistic significance, though, possibly not in an institution that uses taxpayers’ money to promote (allegedly) knowledge and understanding of the contemporary art scene.
The ICA and Mr Crooke are not, however, interested in a discussion of terrorism, its causes and effects and alternative political activity. Their intention is, presumably two-fold. In the first place, misunderstanding the sayings of people like Baudelaire, they are out to épater la bourgeoisie, to shock the complacent middle classes or the establishment or whatever. This ignores the fact that, as far as the arts in this country are concerned (and, indeed, as far as many other institutions are concerned) the establishment is not the bourgeoisie but those juvenile left-wingers who use state hand-outs, which is not something the likes of Baudelaire would have approved of, to scream at the top of their voices of their own moral superiority because they undermine political and ethical decencies.
The second intention is considerably more straight-forward: Mr Crooke’s aim for whatever motives, is to make terrorists and mass murderers acceptable, their followers objects of compassion and to present the one democratic state of the Middle East, Israel, as an oppressive ogre. No other point of view is to be allowed in his universe. Using those state hand-outs the ICA supports him in this less than laudable endeavour. Perhaps, they can no longer find enough contemporary art they can actually approve of.
Landscapes? Animal Pictures? Art featuring things that are pretty to look at? What a banal and provincial idea. Those motifs are entirely lacking in the proper transgressive attitude! Most damning of all, they are utterly bereft of the essential ironic detachment that is the hall mark of the true modern artist.
No, no no.
Art must reflect the edginess and sophistication of both its producers and its audience. Their willingness to transgress bourgeois social conventions, their willingness to defy the prudishness of conventional attitudes.
Animal pictures? Really Mary... why would any serious artist waste their time on such trivia when Art can be used for the promotion of challenging messages that cut against the grain of our complacent society... Messages that challenge our assumptions, stretch our thinking in new ways, take us out of our comfort zone and force us to reexamine our most cherished convictions and attitudes.
Messages such as
BUSH IS STUPID
WAR IS BAD
CAPITALISM IS EVIL
Now THATS really pushing the envelope.
AS IT WAS, the doormen stopped the little boy getting into Sotheby’s, so no one shouted “But the emperor has no clothes!” as giddy buyers bid more than £100 million for the mass-produced works of Damien Hirst.
Indeed, there was only one tense moment at the auction. A pickled shark that had a guide price of £6 million was stuck around the £3 million mark. Think of that, a shark for just £3 million! Onlookers worried that the Hirst bubble had burst. But then a bidding war began, and a wave of applause swept the room when it finally went for £8.5 million.
I can understand the relief. Last year, Hirst produced the perfect symbol of financial excess — a platinum skull encrusted with 8,000 diamonds. The kitsch piece looked like a prop from an Indiana Jones movie but because Hirst could ask £50 million for it, the money-worshippers of the art establishment swooned. Despite that excess producing the worst banking crisis since the Thirties, despite the staff at Lehman Brothers in Canary Wharf losing their jobs on the very day the auction began, Hirst’s prices kept rising.
Not all the oligarchs and sheikhs out there can have gone bust, and I don’t mean to insult Hirst when I say that they may regret their investments. Look at what was on offer. I accept that putting a shark in formaldehyde was an innovative idea but its shock value has dulled with repetition. As for the rest, if you saw Hirst’s butterfly pictures in a gift shop, you wouldn’t think of buying them, while his more decorative work looks like the patterns on cheap wrapping paper.
Why are they selling when all around Hirst asset prices are collapsing? The rather magnificent Stuckist movement of figurative artists has a simple explanation: the art establishment in London has been dominated for too long by an in-group which favours only the conceptual art of Hirst and his colleagues.
All outsiders claim the system is rigged against them and that who you know matters more than what you do — but the Stuckists have a point. The Turner Prize nearly always goes to conceptual artists. Their friend and patron, Sir Nicholas Serota, has been in charge of the Tate for 21 years. As the Stuckist sculptor Nigel Konstam says: “Few dictators have lasted so long or been able to implement their policies so completely. Sir Nicholas has presided over a monoculture more complete than any other European nation.”
A touch over the top but basically right. The ruling clique has been in power for decades and persuaded the public to think the art it favours is the only art worth having. Sir Nicholas can’t last for ever. One day he will retire, hopefully to be a replaced by a truth-telling little boy. When he goes, the price of sharks will crash as fast as Lehman Brothers’ shares.
I find your selection of judge, a certain Mr. Jatin Das to be an unfortunate choice. As anybody with even a passable vision but a clear head can see, he is not an artist of any particular merit. While you have taken the safe and popular route of choosing a famous artist, you have not considered the impact it may have on the impressionable minds of the youngsters when they are presented a talentless hack as a paragon of artistic greatness.
I expound on this in more detail here-
I wish you had shown some courage and selected someone who really can paint, although your commercial compulsions are understandable if regrettable.