Hi all,
We've probably all devoted way to much time to this so I'll attempt to
make this brief.
My POV is this: The destruction of important art is nothing to be cheer
on. But, one may say, I don't see it as important, it's just crap, so
no loss (this has it's own complications in that so much work was
destroyed I don't see how anyone could think it was *all* crap,
especially Chris Ofili*). I find this POV (if it's crap; no loss) very
similar to the POV of book-burners, censors, and other enemies of free
expression.
Of course it's a bit milder, I *hope* most on this list wouldn't
actively conspire to physically harm or destroy art work (my own
rhetoric aside), but taking glee in it's destruction is uncomfortably
close IMO.
*ok, um, Ofili literally uses crap – but his paintings are also
completely gorgeous ;)
On May 27, 2004, at 9:22 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee over the saatchi fire
> seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find the works in
> saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics are two different
> things. Relativists miss this. Just because I dare say some art is
> aesthetically "better" than some other art, that has nothing to do
> with an imposition of morality or political totalitarianism.
> Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere
> anything that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its
> aesthetic appeal to them personally – that smacks a bit of
> totalitarianism (or at least political correctness) to me. "Everyone
> is free to believe whatever they like, as long we all agree to believe
> in relativism."
>
> I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not obliged to defend
> every street walking tranvestite who calls himself a woman. In fact,
> he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a diluted sham. Likewise,
> as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the artistic sanctity of
> Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is "bad," but because
> of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at
> craft and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to
> artwork in the first place. But she has no problem assigning monetary
> value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of that monetary value.
> Forgive me if I'm not touched.
>
> _
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
>> Hiya Curt,
>>
>> It all comes down to book-burning IMO…
>>
>> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
>> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list
>> gleefully
>> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume) this was an
>> accidental
>> fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
>> match.
>>
>> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes
>> paintings
>> – gasp! yes – paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even –
>> yikes!
>> – sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and their old media anyway..
>> the artists will just make more, right?
>>
>> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Re: Burning Down The Art
-
Type: discussion
Comments
T. Whid
There are still two naughty elisions in your argument.
You slide over the fact that
(1) nobody at any point ever *advocated* burning the
stuff down.
(2) neither did anyone advocate burning books
in doing this you link the quite reasonable expression
of schadenfreude ( and what an excellent and apposite
word that is Rob!) at the discomfiture of the dreadful
Saatchi to a kind of crypto nazism -is this actually
what you mean?
Lets assume that those elisions are valid ( which I
don't - they're classic smear tactics:".. this is a
bit like… you almost said….").
Let's address the question of burning books.
If the entirety of Barbara Cartland's oeuvre perished
tomorrow in a blaze ( sorry don't know a US equivalent
-dreadful UK romatic novelist) would it be disaster?
Actually yes -because something of interest culturally
( but artistically bankrupt) would be lost forever.
If however merely a substantial number, perhaps the
majority of copies were lost to the flames the
response of most people here I think would be to
laugh. A lot.
How does this resemble the burning of books or
artworks as a matter of political policy because the
author/artist is a Jew or a Communist or seen as in
some sense oppositional? Not at all.
In fact as Rob has pointed out Hirst , Emin et al are
the official court artists of New Labour, the
warmongers and privatizers -New Labour love 'em
because they bring the naked cynical values of the
market unapologetically to the centre of art -they are
in the words beloved of New Labour local government
hacks everywhere representatives of "the cultural
industries".
And I*M*HO they are piss poor apologies for artists.
But, coming full circle, nobody ever said their works
should be burned, just spoke of them in slightly less
than reverential tones.
Actually as the scale of the thing unfolds it begins
to look very unfunny -if it were just Hirst, Emin and
Chapman I wouldn't lost any sleep but I agree that
Ofili is a very fine artist and of a completely
different order to the majority of the Brit art pack
and I find the loss of work by Heron and Caulfield
distressing.
regards
michael
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've probably all devoted way to much time to this
> so I'll attempt to
> make this brief.
>
> My POV is this: The destruction of important art is
> nothing to be cheer
> on. But, one may say, I don't see it as important,
> it's just crap, so
> no loss (this has it's own complications in that so
> much work was
> destroyed I don't see how anyone could think it was
> *all* crap,
> especially Chris Ofili*). I find this POV (if it's
> crap; no loss) very
> similar to the POV of book-burners, censors, and
> other enemies of free
> expression.
>
> Of course it's a bit milder, I *hope* most on this
> list wouldn't
> actively conspire to physically harm or destroy art
> work (my own
> rhetoric aside), but taking glee in it's destruction
> is uncomfortably
> close IMO.
>
>
>
> *ok, um, Ofili literally uses crap – but his
> paintings are also
> completely gorgeous ;)
>
>
> On May 27, 2004, at 9:22 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee
> over the saatchi fire
> > seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find
> the works in
> > saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics
> are two different
> > things. Relativists miss this. Just because I
> dare say some art is
> > aesthetically "better" than some other art, that
> has nothing to do
> > with an imposition of morality or political
> totalitarianism.
> > Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone
> "ought to" revere
> > anything that presumes to call itself "art,"
> regardless of its
> > aesthetic appeal to them personally – that smacks
> a bit of
> > totalitarianism (or at least political
> correctness) to me. "Everyone
> > is free to believe whatever they like, as long we
> all agree to believe
> > in relativism."
> >
> > I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not
> obliged to defend
> > every street walking tranvestite who calls himself
> a woman. In fact,
> > he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a
> diluted sham. Likewise,
> > as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the
> artistic sanctity of
> > Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is
> "bad," but because
> > of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's
> anti-art that laughs at
> > craft and questions the practice of assigning
> aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place. But she has no
> problem assigning monetary
> > value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of
> that monetary value.
> > Forgive me if I'm not touched.
> >
> > _
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> >> Hiya Curt,
> >>
> >> It all comes down to book-burning IMO…
> >>
> >> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims
> burning Burrows/Rushdie
> >> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists
> on this list
> >> gleefully
> >> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume)
> this was an
> >> accidental
> >> fire, but it seems many on this list would have
> willingly tossed the
> >> match.
> >>
> >> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed,
> which includes
> >> paintings
> >> – gasp! yes – paintings, one-of-a-kind
> paintings, and even –
> >> yikes!
> >> – sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and
> their old media anyway..
> >> the artists will just make more, right?
> >>
> >> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists
> seem to hate art?
> >>
> >>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Of course this wouldn't be a problem if they were New Media/net.art artists as they could just restore the work from backup.Saatchi really should look at getting work under a Creative Commons license. :-)
- Rob.
This made me laugh.
F.
—–
http://www.martian.fm/artburn.htm
A controversial display of burnt work has divided the world of art into non-identical halves, like a dead bisected animal.
The exhibition, London Fire Brigade Incident: L05/1143, features more than 100 incinerated conceptual pieces by some of Britain’s best-known artists, including Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, Phil and Grant Mitchell, Guto Uhu, Dan Collins, Mark Woods, Alex Johnson and Fanny Ciabatta.
Some critics have praised the boldness of the show's 'anti-curatorial' approach to contemporary art, which challenges public perceptions of what ash really is, and how much it may be worth, both in terms of cultural meta-narrative and the insurance.
Others say it could have been an accident, or arson.
The fire transformed London's Saatchi Warehouse into a searing indictment of ordinary objects, space, form, flammable material and structure. Works lost include The Mitchell Brothers' Glued Airfixion and an embroidered hammock - All The Slags Who Have Slagged Me Off This Week So Fucking Far - by Emin.
Firefighters on overtime and a postponed 3.5% pay rise struggled for four hours to bring the blaze under control. Many wore breathing apparatus, slashed frocks and transplanted penises.
A fire brigade spokesman said: "We think the fire started in an adjoining factory unit at about 0400 hours. When we arrive at the scene, however, these first thoughts are displaced by feelings of existential nausea. We seem to be observing a kind of claustrophobic, personal apocalypse. Yet at the same time we cannot avoid a sense that somehow the fire is looking at us…"
Also on the scene were several specialist units of video installation artists. A selection of short filmed pieces with doleful, confessional voiceovers will be screened later this year in a mini-season at the ICA.
Darcy Farquear'say of the Creative on Sunday believes the destruction of so many iconic, tinder-dry works of art is made more tragic by a slightly nasty, or comical, sub-text. "Future generations will not now have the opportunity to see for themselves what these pieces were like. It will certainly add to their mystique, as they aren't actually there any more".
He believes further art fires will follow. "Charles Saatchi is a trend-setter. If he now owns a collection of iconic art reduced to cinders, other collectors will follow. I think - certainly for the purposes of Radio 4's Today programme - we may be witnessing the birth of a new movement. Post-Materialism, possibly. Or something with 'phoenix' in it."
One problem with the Saatchi fire is that much of this work looked much
better in reproduction than in real-life. Getting rid of the real-life
versions actually makes them look better.
Baudrillard fans, start your word processors. :-)
- Rob.