Real Art…Really?
It’s 2015 now and after recent events the world seems a lot more complex … so
I’m heading back to the relative calm of late 2014. Like a lot of people over the
festive break I got myself hooked into various forms social media, reaching
saturation point – bloated with meaningful and quirky distractions offering opinions
on this that and the other, making me feel futile in the ever-expanding and
absorbing world of newsfeeds and interesting information. I was, however, able to
break away from such infectious technology and get back on track, find my
bearings and find some time to make a little bit of artwork, engage in some art
dialogue and do a bit of offline viewing, that is to say look at some art situated in
the real world.
It was early December, when listening to the radio, I heard a series of broadcasts
on Radio 4’s A Point of View by Philosopher Roger Scruton. Someone that I had
not heard of but assumed he must be quite learned and well informed to get such
a slot. He began with the subject of ‘fake art’ and, as I’ve had a number of
conversations with people on the possibility of faking Outsider art, I thought that
this series would be interesting.
His intent from the start was to clear some ground between what he sees as
‘original art’ that is genuine, sincere and truthful, but difficult to achieve, and the
much easier ‘fake art’ that appeals to many critics today. His ire was directed
towards the slick world of Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst and the art market that
supports them. Cries of the emperor’s new clothes ensued – easy targets, I
thought, why mention them now? Ok, they may well represent a particular brand
of slick and successful art that looks like a product rather than anything hand
made but any real significance either of these two monoliths had in the art world
was decades ago. But this high-end financial world is so alien to me and those I know,
that I cannot think of a single person who
really cares that much about this type of work or what these artists are up to.
The likes of Koons and Hirst are really not that important in the world of art that
I and many other creative people inhabit.
Sure they are incredibly wealthy and even if there is some truth in his argument, they are old news.
He may have a case when it comes to being critical of the Turner prize
but it is one competion and if its full of fakery, then it is no more so than the decorative art that adorns
the walls so many Artists Societies Summer Exhibitions,year after year after year.
Its would be easy enough to say such work is a middle class enclave ,often banal or twee and so predictable,
but hey a lot of people get a lot of pleasure out of such events.
Next Scruton, in a sweeping gesture, guns for the faceless bureaucrats of the
Arts Council who, he implies, fund only that which is unpopular with the public
and is therefore arcane, excruciating and meaningless. I find this both insulting
and a little disturbing as the Arts Council also funds a number of arts projects for
historically marginalised communities who would remain hidden without their
support. I have personally been involved in a number of projects, including
Transient Grafitti, an animation created by Deaf Adults With Additional Needs,
which was projected onto the face of Bath Abbey with additional artwork
displayed inside Baths 44AD Gallery. A bringing together various organisations
including Action On Hearing Loss and Suited and Booted Studios CLC, this
project provided opportunities for a range of creative people to work with each
other, developing ideas; going out into the community; being taken seriously;
making it happen and showing it to the public who loved it.
Here is a link to the animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOl5YQ-HLic
This would never have
happened without their support. It does make me wonder what such an
apparently erudite and influential thinker makes of the art made by marginlised and hidden communities. Who knows?
Despite listening to all three broadcasts I never get to find out.
They are still available on the BBC I player via http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pov for your listening
He does mention in his final broadcast that ‘real art’ (as opposed to ‘fake art’) has to have lasting
appeal with three essential factors: beauty, form and redemption. I do not
dispute the value of such qualities but they are not the only ingredients that make
art real, tangible and meaningful. In the end I found his views quite narrow and
patronising, the all-knowing expert dispensing his wisdom to the great unwashed
telling us what real art is …really?