Sir Sidney Nolan (1917-1992) is a big name artist here in Australia; one of his paintings was purchased last year for $5.4 million. So it's noteworthy that a Melbourne artist, Andy Wear, has fried a sketch by Nolan and sold it on ebay. Wear claims that he was inspired to do so by a dream:
"In the dream I had an exhibition of drawings which had all been crumbed and deep-fried. I'd never seen anything like that before," Wear said.
Art has lost its way, has it not?
Having just Googled Nolan's work, I can't see how any of it wouldn't be dramatically improved by Wear's treatment.
ReplyDeleteBack when Duchamp was defecating on French art, he was tearing down something of value. His destruction meant something. But western art was already dead before Nolan went into the racket -- either that, or he helped kill it. Wear is merely defiling another defiler. It means nothing. It's utterly empty.
This is like a stock character on a sitcom uttering his tag line for the 200th time. The intended audience ("intellectuals", here) is genuinely stupid enough to enjoy the moment, though.
"Art" is now pornography, isn't it? Mechanical, predictable reiteration of the same motions in infinite microscopic variation, with only the most perfunctory excuse for a story. The customers just want to see the money shot. They don't care about talent or craft.
"Intellectuals" being the proudly repulsive creatures they are, it's scat porn, of course.
I enjoy your blog Mark, but don't usually comment.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your statement that art has lost its way:
New Zealand's highest honour is to become a member of the Order of New Zealand. A maximum of 20 living people can be members at any one time.
It's newest member (New Year's Honours) is Ralph Hotere, New Zealand's "most important artist."
An example of his fine work is a beautiful 1986 painting. It has a plain white background with the following words scrawled in black crayon:
"Reagan, the mad dog of the west, and Thatcher, his b**ch."
Stuart
Stuart. L, Is it possible for you to give us a URL to the specific painting you reference, regarding both Thatcher and Reagan, As my searches have come up with nothing.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of ones political stances, regarding both Reagan and Thatcher, and taking into account your description of the aforementioned piece. Don't you think it is a little superficial for so called artists to be scrawling political slogans upon canvases, in crayon nonetheless, and it calling art?
Thanks,
A lost Gen-Y'er.
These people aren't artists. isn't it evident?
ReplyDeleteAll talented artists are in commercial enterprises.
The ones that are not are the self proclaimed "Artists" a talentless funny farm of rejects. Its pure luck if they get noticed by the equally looney elite class and make money from their scribbles.
I can't see how any of it wouldn't be dramatically improved by Wear's treatment.
ReplyDeleteI don't think much of Nolan's work, but some of it at least retained a poetic quality.
This is like a stock character on a sitcom uttering his tag line for the 200th time.
Agreed. They really are stuck in a rut.
Stuart L.,
I found the painting you mentioned here.
Interesting that it gets treated seriously as art.
This is like a stock character on a sitcom uttering his tag line for the 200th time.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. They really are stuck in a rut.
Stuart L.,
I found the painting you mentioned here.
Interesting that it gets treated seriously as art.
The whole purpose of "art" today is to support the Left's attack on truth, beauty, and goodness.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't really want to judge until I've experienced this fellow's radical reinterpretation of Nolan's heritage for myself. With salt. And maybe some dip.
ReplyDeleteArt is a matter of taste, after all ;)