giacometti [aka 4.300.000 stickman]
Image by the|G|™
www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/giacometti_walking_m…
the above is actually utterly and totally obscene to me.
and wholly and entirely insane.
i can only reach one conclusion, and the conclusion is that there are two very separate giacometti sculptures at work here.
and one is not a work of art.
the first sculpture is that which we may see in the gallery.
when we look at this sculpture we need not consider the financial value of the work in any way whatsoever.
this consideration need not play any part in our reading of the work.
the second sculpture is that which is sold in the auction room.
this sculpture ceases to be a work of art. its inclusion in auction makes it simply one more commodity in the vast range of commodities that human beings bid for in sale rooms and auction rooms worldwide.
this commodity could be an antique, a car, an autograph, a krugerrand, a diamond.
the ‘fine art’ auction room is a communal urinal; a stage for a class based pissing contest in which very wealthy people outbid each other to secure cachet, and [of course] generate profit.
in my opinion, the world of the sale room, the world of the auction, is wholly divorced from the fundamental notions of art.
in the many galleries i have visited to see the many works that I have seen, I cannot remember a single occasion when I considered the cost of a work when considering what that work conveyed to me.
the BBC ran a documentary series called ‘the genius of photography.’
one of the episodes featured the auction sale [sothebys new york i believe] of a very early photograph.
this was the first auction wherein a single photograph was expected to fetch a price of one million dollars or more.
the actual sale price when the hammer fell was considerably more than one million dollars.
the saleroom crowd actually applauded!
i found this utterly fucking appalling. i found it to be one of the most perfect examples of philistinism i have ever witnessed.
they did not applaud the beautiful work of the photographer.
they applauded an amount of money.
they applauded a number.
the irony that these people will almost certainly feel themselves to be the final and unarguable arbiters of taste does not escape me.
though it seems to me that they are the very opposite, they are the arbiters of utterly crass tastelessness.
rightly is the philistine thus named.
nb – bids of over one million sterling will be gratefully accepted for this piece.
expect little if any profit.
the|G|™
I’ll be happy to start the bidding at one pound
I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiment.
It is ironic beyond belief that e.g. Vincent van Gogh nearly starved to death in his time and now his works sell for the equivalent of the GDP of a medium-sized African nation.
you’re right
Seen in
Ways of Seeing
ditto. they are greedy whores not lovers of art.
*grins*
)
*´¨ )
¸.•´¸.•´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•´ (¸.•*´¯`*•> *clapclap*
u made our day!!
i like that you put "pornographic" in the tags.
The business of Art’s no different to any other… sadly. It’s soul trading. The artists that made these works… if they could see what they have been turned into… would no doubt weep with shame… and artists today that play the fame game art world corporate whore… are not artists.
some of the best art ever is done not for profit but for art’s sake, because the artist could no more not make art than breathe.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34586374@N03/4093853451/
Hmmm, not so sure, although I do loath many types of self publicising. For example here in flcikr land, the shameless reciprocating circle jerk that is often rife. Courting comments by disingenous relationship building to increase one’s profile etc. Now these people are worthy of loathing.
But why shouldn’t someone who makes "a art™" not profit from it? Especially while drawing breath enough to enjoy the fruits of their labours.
Do all artist have to suffer in poverty to be a REAL artist? Fuck no! String the philistine yahoo fucks upside down and bleed them dry for every penny you can shake from them.
yepppp. It sucks. Plain and simple.
Julian, I’m talking of the contemporary art world, as it’s existed since the mid 60′s… just look at the career of Raushenberg or Basquiat to see how art dealers usurped great intentions and originality and made it about commercialising endeavour, expression and social cause into stocks and shares.
The resulting evolution this had on today’s contemporary artists and art world post Warhol manufacturing art for an Art world… and Art world being the NASDAC of Art… all very different from pre Warhol and the demise of the artist/artwork.
As for self promotion… that’s a very different concept in these internet times… expression has a platform instantly… good work will always shine and bad will always be dull. Heart and soul in work always shows and banality is always banal. To each taste their own taste of course.
"the shameless reciprocating circle jerk"… I could not agree with you more.
"Do all artist have to suffer in poverty to be a REAL artist?"… no, but artists making Art purely to exist as commodities in the Art world (and I am talking of word designed for sale in the high dollar Art market) sell the moral intention of Art out.