Why the Art World Is So Loathsome: Eight theories.

'The flight of craft' :D

o man more from paglia in a minute, can't wait, bated breath

voted art basel miami

these all read like christian youth camp bumper stickers, neon pink all-caps block writing, black background

The dorky uncool ’80s was a great time for art. The Harings, Cutrones, Scharfs, and Basquiats—life-enhancing, graffiti-inspired painters—communicated a simple, relevant, populist message of hope and flava during the darkest years of the AIDS crisis. Then, in the early ‘90s, grunge arrived, and displaced the unpretentious communicative culture of the ‘80s with the dour obscurantism of COOL. Simple fun and emotional sincerity were now seen as embarrassing and deeply uncool. Enter artists like Rachel barrel-of-laughs Whiteread, who makes casts of the insides of cardboard boxes. (Nice work if you can get it!)

There is a point in the first sentence - dunno about what follows it though?

Top Comment:

Toolanddie Dec 17, 2013
Simon wonders why the art world is money mad? America is money mad. Doctors, lawyers and CPAs, the professional, all expect their ticket punched to the Millionaires Club and every schlub thinks they should be rich and famous for singing, dancing and falling down. The only reason these expectations aren't met is because of people on food stamps and the unemployed, who think they have some kind of God given right to live in-doors.

'Toolanddie'

The art world is full of crappy art because it is very hard to make art that is both original and excellent, and art that is excellent, but rather unoriginal, is considered to be beneath the notice of critics and patrons of the art world. Definitely nobody is paying $100,000 or more for art that is simply excellent, though not especially original, unless of course the artist is already dead and there is a well-developed market in their works.

The whole 'art world' scene as it is defined by dealers and buyers is very depressing to watch or to think about and has been for a long, long time.

- your mom

http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/02/131202fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all

Skimmed the title as "Why the World is So Loathsome" and didn't quite get the gist of the choices.

i don't get what could be wrong with ice cream

The art world is full of crappy art because it is very hard to make art that is both original and excellent, and art that is excellent, but rather unoriginal, is considered to be beneath the notice of critics and patrons of the art world.

Yeah, you've put into words what I always want to say to these ten-a-penny generalising critiques of the entire field of 'art today' or 'the novel today' or 'drama today' or whatever.

part of me really loves how so much contemporary art is one-dimensional bullshit. i saw the mike kelley retrospective at moma ps1 this fall and thought it was totally juvenile and silly for the most part* but also felt happy for mike kelley, that he was able to make a living just by being his own mediocre self and creating what he wanted to create. i'm not being sarcastic at all. fine art is the most open-ended cultural field we have today. so much of it is just daring the audience to ask it to justify itself. and maybe this, in itself, still has value. in a world where people like toolandie (above) mocks the idea that people are automatically entitled to the basics of life, like food and shelter, maybe what we need are more people whose labor results only in stubbornly, obstinately useless artifacts.

*except for the glass models of Krypton in bottles, which i adored.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mike+kelley&client=firefox-a&hs=mDs&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DebtUvrsAsK-sQTFvoLwDw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=585#facrc=_&imgdii=dDWLb4a1hQL97M%3A%3BG2JJf5r1J-nuAM%3BdDWLb4a1hQL97M%3A&imgrc=dDWLb4a1hQL97M%253A%3BmaybgfKhsJlBFM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.curiator.com%252Fart%252Fx_807c71a99c9fb52888be4d2f61751727.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcuriator.com%252Fart%252Fmike-kelley%252Fdeodorized-central-mass-with-satellites%3B1000%3B750

these things might have been intended to say something about childhood but to me, by occupying the conspicuous gallery space, they merely communicated one thing: "i have the right to exist."

sorry, these are the things i was talking about:
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-WS249_kelley_G_20130315090604.jpg

The glass models of Krypton are stunning but I do like a lot of the rest of his work.

The complaint about Ofili in section two is completely moronic and the rest of the article isn't much better.

There is a lot of bad contemporary art but anyone who thinks that there hasn't always been a lot of terrible art mixed in with the good is bonkers.

I'm pretty drunk and I dropped out multiple times from a pretty lowly art program:
Aside from all the money, in my gut I still feel like the prevalence of "art about art" is the big flaw behind rich people fucking things up with their money (so the winner in this list is Art Basel). I see art as primarily communicative - a dialogue between artist and each individual viewer, when art becomes insular and uninterested in the viewer (especially those who might not have an art background), it's empty. I'm a lifelong atheist but a lot of the most powerful art to me is religious iconography (Renaissance painting or Byantine iconography or Hindu/Islamic art) - it existed not just to stroke the patron's ego but to enlarge the experience of those who saw it in a language they understood.

When I read about experimental/physical/conceptual art from the mid-20th century, it seems truly daring and about something - as simple of as ideas of community or the world outside the gallery or w/e. When I read or see conceptual art today it's (usually) about the artist's thesis statement and CV.

cool is corrosive in all fields but i dunno, can't sign up to big generalizations about individual things

Milo is right - the worst thing to ever read in a bio or review is a variation on 'challenges the viewer to think about the nature of art' when it's clear that the artist in question isn't doing anything that Duchamp didn't do better. When I go to a really good contemporary art gallery or show that line of approach rarely features though.

And, like, Impressionist paintings of a field also 'challenge the viewer to think about the nature of art'. You can say that about anything that was ever new.

Hmmm. Haven't read the accompanying piece yet, but really, wasn't all this covered in Sheila Heti's How Should A Person Be? ?

Is "endlessly self referential art about the nature of art" one of the options? No? Because that's the kind of thing that gets good grades at art school but no one in their right mind wants to see in a gallery.

Oh. This is old. I was thinking I had read this before.

Coming back to Mike Kelley, Treeship - having seen the piece what do you think of the description here (aside from the fact that it's a somewhat overblown sales pitch):

“Deodorized Central Mass with Satellites” is a complex and multi-layered work, creating a quintessential American existential environment as an interpretation of consumer excess, of bulk purchases, collection in multiples and color varieties, gaudy color coordination, pursued with the conviction of entitlement to luxury and life-style. Meanwhile, the consumerism Mike Kelley ironically depicts welcomes the cheapest and lowest quality objects, at the same time as ironically laying claim to quality of life.

“Deodorized Central Mass with Satellites” is beautiful, tragic, powerful, and brilliant. It is a metaphor for the emotional connections made with objects of trivial consumption, an exploration of shape and form and texture, angles and edges dominating round forms and blurring borders. The sterilizing perfuming of the air denatures the very environment in which the denatured forms are held in suspension, like the core tragedy of the illusion of an entire culture, summarized brutally in this living, existential environment.

I liked his More Love Hours Than Can Ever Be Repaid as well. Again it was created with the use of low-quality toys but those ones were carefully handmade craft items that were given away to children and the parents of children without a financial transaction value but with all the expectations of gratitude and reciprocity that come with, what are on the surface, selfless gifts of time and care.

In answer to the question, one picture says it all:

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01896/Dasha_Zhukova1_1896897a.jpg

Definitely nobody is paying $100,000 or more for art that is simply excellent, though not especially original, unless of course the artist is already dead and there is a well-developed market in their works

You're being sarcastic, right?

these things might have been intended to say something about childhood but to me, by occupying the conspicuous gallery space, they merely communicated one thing: "i have the right to exist."

― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:33 PM (Yesterday)

Mike Kelley is great. That longish obituary/article about his death and last years actually made me cry. There are so many Mike Kelley imitators. From what I read, that isn't why he committed suicide though.

Anyone who makes the critique that there's no craft/skill in the art world anymore is a fucking moron who hangs out in his basement and doesn't actually go see art. Go to any art fair or hop galleries on any night and their are hundreds of ridiculously skilled painters, sculptors, sketchers etc. There are legions of people who have at least a reasonably good command of the techniques of the old masters. There's too much competition in art -- in order to stand out, you have to build some kind of brand and/or personality cult.

Also I wish everyone who honks that same tired complaint would first gain at least an elementary knowledge of the art theory and criticism that led to the move away from "technique" as the be-all-end-all of art.

As for what's wrong with the art world, I voted money, but I think the money was always there. It's more something about how the money behaves -- my impression is that once the money did a pretty good job of pretending it wasn't about the money. People thought of art as an investment, they just weren't so crass about it. Ruling class dynamics/nobless oblige perpetuated the idea of art as being transcendent of wealth and class, whether that was true or not. Maybe it's the overwhelming of old money by new money.

Yeah, I don't buy the whole "loss of technique" shit either. There's plenty of skill and craft to go round, but it's the same old "creating a brand in order stand out" that every 20th/21st art form has had to cope with.

And I am very wary of over-romanticising the past, because it's completely obvious that the filters of age and forgetting have done pruning work to create canons, rather than older art being inherently "better".

And money has always been with us, and always infected the creation of art, from the days of the great patrons which has been canonised into the supposed golden age. But, to me, and this theory may be off base and crazy, but I suspect there is something to do with *why* people throw money at art. Through much of Western history, Christianity has been so prevalent that rich people threw money at art to save their souls, while now now they just throw money at art either as a straight up investment to inflate their wallets, or the more public-spirited but still craven idea of "starting a collection" as an endowment to the world and save their names for posterity. (People who donate a wing to a national gallery on the provision that it's kept intact with their name emblazoned on the rooms.)

I don't think that religion, or the effort to "save one's soul" makes art any more morally improving or noble. But it puts a slant on it that treating it like an investment portfolio does not. It's not money that kills art, but treating it as money and no more does diminish it.

I am talking out of mine own personal impressions and biases, though, which creates its own slant of utter bullshit.

I am not sure yr Pinaults, Pinchuks, al-Thanis and Abramoviches do view art as a significasnt investment in any financial sense. They don't need the money and rarely part with pieces from their collections. Art is definitely viewed as a commodity by many investors but for the super, super rich the cultural capital that comes with a great collection, and at some level appreciation of the art itself, is surely more important.

i like art

Many of these new super-rich are simply laundering their money in the art world.

For the question itself, why is the art world loathsome rather than what's wrong w/ art, I don't see how the answer can be anything but Art Basel/$$$.

lol @ acting like grunge is an art historical term. ah yes, noted grunge artist rachel whiteread

as i will demonstrate, i know nothing about the "Art World". but i always think it's weird that people talk about it as if the only people who belong are the anointed group of rich people who get to buy and sell the work for huge $$$. it's probably a poor comparison, but the only artistic realm i know anything about is the music world, where most of my favorite artists are relatively unknown and certainly aren't making any money. the Art World that's being discussed in the Slate article might just be the section of visual artists who are supported and driven by wealthy people (which is why it's loathsome), ignoring the vast underground of quality people that are involved on both the creator and curator side. maybe?

only a fashion dude like doonan could think that nirvana was the defining force in the 90s contemporary art landscape

not that this makes it immune to the criticisms but art is very self-aware these days imo & there is a lot of art that is in ~dialogue~ with all these dimensions (branding, commercialisation, $$$) in an interesting, critical, even playful way

there is just so much wtf wrongness in the article ... citing Camille Paglia for one.

wrong thing #2

“allowed itself to be defined in the public eye as an arrogant, insular fraternity with frivolous tastes and debased standards.” As a result, the funding of school and civic arts programs has screeched to a halt

At this point, the main things that are causing the lack of funding of school and civic arts programs in the US are small government Republicans and other politicians and voters that favor lower taxes, and a focus on STEM and teaching to tests (in terms of schools). And then you have states and city governments, that even if led by arts-friendly people, will reduce funding for the arts in favor of education, crime-reduction, and social safety net programs.

wrong thing #3

“No major figure of profound influence has emerged in painting or sculpture since the waning of Pop Art and the birth of Minimalism in the early 1970s,”

Camille quote. This is rockism as applied to art. Dunno if it's even worth responding to.

wrong thing #4 -- much like wrong thing #3

As stated above, a lack of skill and craft among artists is sucking the life and the gravitas out of the art world.

More art rockism. There is plenty of skill and craft. The people that Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons employ are highly skilled. I feel like if he was writing about music rather than visual art, he'd be getting the full on Chris Ott treatment.

wrong thing #5

Short attention spans have made art into one quickie sight gag after another

Since when? This has been going on for decades. Also, major generalizations going on.

wrong thing #6

how do groovy, liberal, and, one assumes, democratic dealers and artists rationalize their politician-like reliance upon, and coziness with, the super-wealthy?

This has been going on for centuries.

wrong thing #7

The dorky uncool ’80s was a great time for art.

more gross generalizations. The 80s weren't all about Haring and Basquiat. Here is a real life-affirming work by "populist" painter, Julian Schnabel
http://annex.guggenheim.org/collections/media/full/2007.5_ph_web.jpg

Oh and those super dorky artists he complains about on the first page: Serrano and Mapplethorpe, as well as David Salle and Robert Longo.

"Art Rockism" is my new favourite term.

ya its weird that he thinks that artists weren't cool in the past

"The people that Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons employ are highly skilled."
How much can you outsource though before it becomes ridiculous?

why is it ridiculous?

if you buy a piece of art, you then become the artist of a readymade. that sort of thing.

Think of big-name artists employing dozens of assistants along the lines you'd think the atelier of a couturier would be run.

like gagosian?

Is Zaha Hadid a lesser architect because other people build the building?

it depends on how hands-on she is (what i've read of her leads me to think she is quite hands-on)

lol what you think she pours the cement?

i had the mental picture of her wearing a hardhat and wagging her finger at a poorly poured foundation, then rolling up her sleeves and operating the mixer to patch it

not gonna read this why because paglia

but reuters econ journo felix salmon has carved out a minor niche for himself covering the world of big money int'l art and it's always really interesting

I don't know much about the contemporary art world, but a friend of mine posted a few pics from Art Basel Miami last fall and I thought it was pretty decent stuff.

yeah I love Felix Salmon on the art market, and in general. He's my dude.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/tag/art/

xp There is tons of great contemporary art! I really think that almost anyone with any tastes could find something to like; there's never been a wider variety of art more accessible to more people. I guess the complaints about "the art world" are more in reference to the gallery system, the auction houses, art's place in society, etc.

Yep. I've seen some of the best paintings of a placid looking baby Jesus and pretty ladies in frilly dresses the world has to offer and I wouldn't for a fraction of a second minimise the glory of them but there's something invigorating about seeing a good contemporary art collection that's hard to replicate.

I wish someone would write a very long takedown of all of these lazy "what's wrong with contemporary art" pieces by people who seem to barely have a clue what's going on in contemporary art.

what's some good contemporary art that can be bought for meager sums?

well the easiest thing to do is just find something you like and see if there's a print or poster of the artist's work

you can also buy lesser known people here:
http://saatchionline.com/

what's your idea of a meager sum?

$10-$20,mayyyybe $50-$100, but will have to skip burritos for a week.

O_o

not trying to be an asshole but i would like to imagine that an artist's time is worth a little more than that, otherwise yes, go with prints and posters.

(i mean depends how long it takes them to do the work, obviously, and i could see the second of your price ranges being a little more viable depending on the kinda thing it is)

well, the disconnect between skill/time/effort and pricing is why i'd actually expect really good art to be cheaper.

You could also go shopping on a site that won't profit a domestic abuser, right?

is it both saatchis that are bad or just the one?

20x200.com occasionally has interesting prints if you have a low budget.

At those prices you could also trawl starving artist/art school fairs if you don't want posters and don't care about names.

The bad one is the art collector. If you don't want to add to his bank balance, don't use that site.

Go to degree shows and take a punt on something you like.

$50? Ooooook.

One of my best friends is a Goldsmiths fine art graduate: yr pretty much told that after the degree show the minimum you should be charging in £500. Goes up to £1000 when you've had a "solo show".

student shows, open studios, benefit sales for non-profits -- if you want an original. If you like photography and/or printmaking, it's easier to get something cheaper.

this is why I tend to come down more in the realm of 'spend the money on supplies to make something yourself' - part of me can never get past the feeling that it would be absurd to spend $2k on something that's essentially decorative.

do you only listen to music you made yourself?

http://i.imgur.com/bRp3ct0.jpg

Just sounds like the guy who always says 'I could've thought of that and whacked it together of an afternoon' when errrrrm that NEVER happens. BTW if you're buying a piece of contemporary art mainly because it's decorative, the disgusting savage thread is ------------------> thattaway.

If it was a choice between $2000 for a record or $2000 for a guitar and drums, I'd go with the latter.

Just sounds like the guy who always says 'I could've thought of that and whacked it together of an afternoon' when errrrrm that NEVER happens.

Conversely, as a person of less-than-stellar financial means, can I envision a situation where that purchase makes even a tiny bit of sense vs buying the tools to make art yourself? No, not really. I think the latter is a much more enriching proposition for most people.

BTW if you're buying a piece of contemporary art mainly because it's decorative, the disgusting savage thread is ------------------> thattaway.

I liked this (which i found on the saatchi site $100 but promise not to buy)
http://d3oeu2l8qd7s1b.cloudfront.net/296904-8316049-6.jpg

I think if I were to add up how much I paid for everything in my "collection" it would add up to $2000. For $2000 would I be able to make equivalent things? Pretty sure the answer is no.

Sure, but I was referring to a $2000 purchase (1000 pounds, MFA's solo show).

well, assumedly people would buy art within their budget.

And not to be totally dismissive of what you're saying, milo, I do buy recordings by other musicians as well as make my own music. I've made my own art and bought art by others. There are a lot of things I like that other artists & musicians can do better than I can.

If the only purpose of art were "decorative" why would anyone buy an original work instead of a reproduction?

because it looks better?

or because it has more cachet

well, yes. it's the natural fibers vs. polyester issue. It is about class and cachet.

art is cool

not all of it

some art is bad

http://www.thecouchsessions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/image_4-e1380867625569.jpeg

who was that famous restricted income couple who had that crazy impressive collection?

big Bruce Nauman fan

I didn't say the only purpose of art at all - the specific situation where you buy a piece to put it on display in your home, though, is primarily decorative. I would look askance at anyone who hangs a painting above the sofa and pretends otherwise.

It's not just about means (if my income tripled, I can't foresee finding a purchase like that altogether reasonable), it's also about collecting vs doing and all that. I used to hate reading art magazines with collector profiles, as if spending money on someone else's work was a creative and valuable act in itself.

I used to hate reading art magazines with collector profiles, as if spending money on someone else's work was a creative and valuable act in itself.

Hahah, yeah, that annoyed me too! It's some lifestyles of the rich and famous thing that struck me as catering to their advertisers.

I bring artworks into my house to live with them and experience them on a long-term basis. Any object can be viewed as decorative in the domestic context, but living with artworks is an entirely different unfolding of access to them and can be incredibly rewarding.

Granted they are the works of me, my wife or my friends, but still.

if a collector raises the value of the art though, then in a real sense it is creative and valuable, no?

I feel like the paramaters of this entire discussion and all the positions one can take within it are set by art's relationship to money and capital in contemporary society.

the most loathesome thing is they think their opinion is the Word of the Lord

I feel like the paramaters of this entire discussion and all the positions one can take within it are set by art's relationship to money and capital in contemporary society.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, February 3, 2014 1:33 PM (48 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

correct, lock thread

"The people that Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons employ are highly skilled."
How much can you outsource though before it becomes ridiculous?

― Philip Nunez, Monday, February 3, 2014 6:00 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My girlfriend was employed as an assistant to a high-profile artist - not Hirst or Koons mind - and she hasn't doesn't an art class in her life. I would trust her to stick things on to things more or less attractively though - she does this around the house. The artist in question would turn up to the studio maybe twice a year, drunk, to help to carry stuff off to exhibitions. He'd also turn up whenever a documentary crew was around, whereupon he'd help with the sticking things on to things while they were filming.

If you've ever seen Koons' paintings in person you know he hires some incredibly skilled people. I don't know what to say about Hirst--if he's paying somebody to make those paintings then he must want them to look that bad. A lot of the rest of the work by both artists, you'd need fabricators of all types to pull that stuff off regardless.

I didn't say the only purpose of art at all - the specific situation where you buy a piece to put it on display in your home, though, is primarily decorative. I would look askance at anyone who hangs a painting above the sofa and pretends otherwise.

Yes, because it's not like art *means* anything at all, especially not art you've chosen to bring into your home and live with day after day.

Just like the music that you buy and put into your ears more than once has no other meaning whatsoever apart from filling up silence and being kinda decorative.

Most community/participatory art and commissioned work inhabit their own worlds far removed from collectors, biennials, larger galleries, frieze magazine etc.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

http://static0.artsy.net/additional_images/5172f467e033f149c8000137/medium.jpg
http://easelkisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Sterling-Ruby-Collage-366x274.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/com.artwelove.asset/be29de234ca03dba2907dff58c58705f-l.jpg
http://payload142.cargocollective.com/1/10/349083/5142785/shannon-ebner-signature-spread-2_1000.jpg
http://www.romansigner.ch/media/arbeiten/05-1986%20WStiefel.JPG
http://www.flashartonline.com/uploads/testi/image/Articoli/HENNING-BOHL.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Prototype_For_New_Understanding.jpg
http://media.rhizome.org/blog/8114/rnews.jpeg
http://badatsports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Gina-Beavers.jpg

i like art that can't be used as an investment, like performances , jokes, works that need the participation of an audience , internet stuff that you can copy/paste/pirate/modify unlimitedly

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

― System, Monday, February 10, 2014 12:01 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I like System. He/she/it reminds me of things I have forgotten. Glorious System, Thank You! Best forum member by far, though you all have your charms too.

going with adderall as i would like some please if you don't mind

Best art imo is random shit people do with appropriation on youtube. Like the pizza slowed down 800%. Artists did stuff w video back in the 80's (& 70's?) but the democratization of methods of production and distribution makes it much more interesting to me than if you went and saw it isolated in a gallery.

also movies, people dancing at clubs & parties, drawing (esp comics), clothes wearing

, the sinuous, rippling muscles of a cheetah in pursuit of an impala,

the first sip of a can of coca-cola on a hot day,

not fetishized enough; duchamp nailed it with his art-as-a-network old joke but i have to say i am not *that* amused at it's continuation via hi level art market shenanigans that could get mistaken as economic crimes.

read something that i liked once: the aesthetic conduct, pleasant or not, is it's own thing, and it can be applied to works of art AND everything else too.

I think I voted for fashion because you end up with mini-stores in large museum exhibitions and that just kinda annoys me -- keep the gift shop in the gift shop area.

very happy w that series of images, flopson, btw, ijs

idk, keep on js

1. the artist as the prophet and harbinger of neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy - the worker who never leaves the factory.

2. the aporiatic space of the art encounter whereby the ethical dimension is suspended or occluded.

3. the mythologies of creativity and their tactic complicity in hegemonic discourses of entrepreneurial heroism, simultaneously allowing the displacement of responsibility through the production of new styles of cultural valorisation.

4. endlessly boring parties.

good post

Come on, if you think art parties are boring, you've never been to a music industry party!

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

i trashed the work of mike kelley (rip) on this thread six years ago. i want to revise that opinion. i don't enjoy his work, really, but i see now that it's full of vitality and feeling and not at all an example of the things that are wrong with the art world.

however, there is a lot wrong with the art world.