contemporary monkey

decode: oneDotZero

Surely, this means War!  The Victoria and Albert Museum, the traditional bearer of arch conservatism in London, the safe-house for fine arts and antiques, has fired a Victorian cannonball at the young, art-drunk pirates across the river at Tate Modern.  So, it is with pressed trousers and starched, button-down shirt, I managed a clean and not so proletariat taxi to the West End.  My initial reason for a V&A visit was a view of the new Renaissance Wing, otherwise, I wouldn’t have thought to visit the Big Shed of Old Man Art.  At the front door, however, I was spirited in a different direction by the V&A’s latest design show, “Decode” which is a collaboration with the digital arts force: oneDotZero.  So, in the forefront of the V&A’s normally dusty, historical collection, was a lively contemporary show, which, normally, is released on DVD, to a select group of art futurists, technology enthusiasts and general digit heads like myself.  How very dare they assume righteous enthusiasm for the art of our time!

I say war, but really I mean sneaky, underhanded. tunnel-building, get ‘em while they’re not looking, volley of contemporary art flung mildly (West End style) in the face of the young thugs on the south side of the Thames.  While Tate Modern were busy building massive empty steel boxes, reminiscing on mid-century Pop sentimentalism, and gearing up for a 100 year, look-back on the glorious days of de Stijl, those ruthless ninjas at the V&A caught us off guard with their own digital stealth.  What happened to knowing one’s station in life?

digital use of non-digital media

These sorts of easily-consumed shows are usually a museum’s amuse-bouche for the main course further inside, so I wasn’t expecting complex or deep.  Watching others wander in and out of “Decode”, however, was like watching stag and hen crowds coming leaving a Broad Street bar.  While none of the exhibits were overtly deep, all were engaging enough to divert attention away from other sections of the museum (if not other museums).  Every Tom, Dick and Harry, not to mention Jane and Joe Bloggs, seemed to be occupied with a sense of joy and play.  As regular V&A attendees know, merriment is a word that is rarely put to use in an official brochure.  But then, such human impertinence is invariably closely shadowed by its arch enemy: The Fun Cops.

William Wiles, in Icon magazine says of the show, “Decode is a lot of fun, but is it anything more than that?  There’s plenty of sideshow candyfloss (cotton candy to Americans)  - where’s the design nutrition?”  He says that because people in attendance are having a rollicking morning interacting with the exhibits, and apparently that isn’t allowed in his particular land of art.  Children, mind your manners.  Need I remind you that you are a guest of the Victoria and Albert Museum?  Tut-tut.

Wiles goes on to say that, “the text refers more to art than to design… But really the work is in a new field; digital crafts.  It’s the 21st century equivalent of William Morris wallpaper.”  So what if it is?  Is van Gogh the 19 century equivalent of William Morris because he was adept at working paint?  Is Michelangelo the 16th century equivalent because he saw his final figure in the marble before arming himself with hammer and chisel?  Craft is only dull if the final product is dull, and as far as I could tell, nobody in Decode was laughing and cavorting from dullness.

From mid-20th century, most art was created with one person in mind: the artist.  Toward the end of the 20th century, about the same time the world wide web broke down social barriers, Relational Art synthesized what was already known by the technologists.  If you don’t involve people, they’ll come anyway.  The V&A seems to understand this, and, every once in a while, reminds itself not to take itself too seriously.

Anyway, if sensing joy is a sign of candyfloss, then Anish Kapoor is the fast food captain of carnivals.  Most Kapoor exhibits draw a crowd of smiles and worthwhile chatter amongst the groundlings and commoners.  It doesn’t have to be cryptic, profound, or ironic.  Sometimes effective art simply makes a difference in people’s daily lives.  Otherwise, why do it?  More importantly, why engage with it?

lots to say, not enough wood planks

Let’s say you’re trundling along to work on British Rail on a weary weekday morning, about 8:30, pressed up as politely as you can, to your like-minded human brothers and sisters, and you’re counting the stops to your final destination because, well, you can only hold your breath for so long.  Just as you’re quietly pronouncing judgement on the other sardines in the tin, out burst the words of wit from the mouths of one or two of your previously targeted victims.  Something random comes up in a conversation, like, “Why don’t they just do their job and fire me?”  Or possibly, “Standing at 30 mph will be the fastest I move all morning”.  But more probably, “Is your hand supposed to be there?”

And what happens, do you write these things down?  No, you don’t.  And you know why you don’t write these trophies down?  Because you’re not an artist (you’re on the 8:30 after all, while the whole of the artist-class is still happily dreaming during that avoidable part of the day).  Writing down, or even painting down, life’s found easter eggs is the job of the curious and enterprising artist….once they wake up, that is.

Take, for example, Bob and Roberta Smith, who are in this case, one artist/person.  Already the Human Resources people would have a problem with him…her…whomever, so the evidence of pure artist-hood is unmistakable.  Bob and Roberta Smith paint signs of anecdotes and slogans heard from the rest of the world.  Bob (to avoid confusion and lengthy copy, let’s use the masculine gender for reference) isn’t even a very good sign writer - he makes every mistake in the graphic design bible, such as not enough contrast between foreground and background, using enough type fonts to employ a London agency creative staff for ten projects, and the use of unwanted, cheap and not very “brand friendly” materials (banged up 2×4 planks, joined together).

He’s prolific, Bob, with his capturing the moment on oil and wood. At Beaconsfield Art Gallery, Bob’s finished up a year-long effort of sign-painting and sloganeering.  Beaconsfield is located in the Nine Elms part of London, and in their specific case, also physically supporting the 8:30 British Rail every weekday, along with every other late-running train that travels over the gallery.  Beaconsfield is 50% gallery, 50% cafe, filled with 100% wise-cracking artist customer base.  After grabbing a coffee, and feeling the sneer of the natives, one must endeavor to find the artist’s work.  In a first floor, disused theatre, about the size of a grammar school venue for a Christmas play, Bob’s made nine panels nailed (probably with rusty nails) to the wall, which are all part of a larger written story.  The artist has copied the content from a Guardian columnist who specializes in the tennis scene .  Steve Bierley was, at the time, on a somewhat alien assignment, covering something he normally doesn’t cover: art.  In his interview with the artist Louise Bourgeois, he summed up the difference between his familiar subject of sport, and art.  “You look at sport, you think about sport.  You look at art, and you think about yourself.”  A nice gem.  This sloganeering media might have some legs after all.

In another room which Beaconsfield has labeled “the Arches”  because it inhabits a trestle’s arch under the rails, Bob appears to be having a boot sale.  About a hundred signs are planted at every angle, on various made up pedestals, including staged on ladders, chairs, desks, and anything else happened to be in Bob’s way at the time.  Each sign itself is really not much to get frothy about, or even particularly noteworthy.  But painting slogans on lots of signboards, displaying them all together in a ramshackle under-the-tracks, hideout is something else.  Audibly layered with discordant and random, percussive music, played by Bob of course, the physical space you’re in becomes the art.  If there were comfy sofas and bar tables, this would be a vibey place for an after-work drink-up.  Maybe all misunderstood artist should think this way.  If an art piece means absolutely nothing to 102 % of the world, just make loads of similar pieces and amass a treasure chest of glory.  Even if it doesn’t work, think of all the cool party places we’ll have.  When I win the lottery, I’m going to buy one of these poor man’s cafe and art bar.  Forget the diamonds and flashy cards, think of all the strange and weird friends you could hang out with in your new art space?

olde worlde graffiti(e)

Some art galleries are better designed than others.  Indeed some are so well designed, they’re more appealing than the art presented inside.  Take the London’s Saatchi Gallery.  When it first opened, I wasn’t impressed much with the random pieces that Charles Saatchi called art, but the building’s flooring was visually and vastly impressive.  In fact, the Saatchi’s front desk at the time provided brochures featuring the flooring maker.  It was probably the most memorable thing to come out of the Saatchi Gallery since the Big Room of Oil.

The Wallace Collection in central London is another example.  The collection itself seldom gets any press.  “Hidden gem” is the tag usually attached to it, Odd Bag of Camp might be another phrase for it, but either way, it’s not always on one’s tour of contemporary art galleries and museums in London.  But as Damien Hirst has just moved in, art lovers are suddenly interested.  The Wallace Collection is a hodgepodge of bombastic Rococo style furniture, mantle pieces, French porcelain, and other collectibles, most from the 17th and 18th century.  If you’re interested in modern or contemporary art, you’d hate this stuff.  More than Jeff Koon’s basketballs, you’d hate this stuff

The gallery is filled with olde worlde trinkets that appeal mostly to 80 year old grandmothers and 8 year old granddaughters.  To the rest of us, it’s the Las Vegas of the art museum world.  It’s not my cup of tea, but to house so much of this eye candy in one place is impressive.  Whomever Wallace is, his or her collection is exhaustively consistent…and eye splitting.  I give it due credit, though, as it’s much more focused than the family collectors featured in Art + Auction magazine, who seem to hammer together a variety of styles and periods of history into one collection.  With the Wallace Collection, there is no doubt: the older and bolder, the better.

Dutch + Bacon + Hirst = Dull

Which is why the Wallace Collection is a peculiar place for Damien Hirst’s new attempt at creating art through his newfound friends, the paintbrush and the canvas.  Possibly he sees The Wallace as an inspiration to historical standards and now’s the time to shed the burden of putrefying animal carcasses.  Every one of his paintings, however, is a direct retrograde of somebody or something else: Francis Bacon’s chalk lines, 1990’s digital compositing, Dutch historical vanitas symbolism.  Running out of people to copy, Hirst even remakes himself using his own shark jaws, dots, and skulls from previous sculptures.  The whole scene felt more like an art school critique room than any sort of mature work by an established artist.  I guess that’s Damien, done.

Beyond the paintings, however, and much more importantly, is a Hirst contribution more profound, more substantial, and ultimately more significant to the art world.  In his effort to hang his canvases, Hirst has had to hang fresh wallpaper behind them.  The silvery, silky Victorian fabric fits the style of the interior perfectly, but also introduces a modern take on an old idea.  I found the wallpaper to be more visually absorbing than any of Hirst’s work.  It’s a damn shame most of the fabric is covered by someone’s mediocrity, but I suppose that’s the price of seeing new art.  We all have to do our bit by enduring the desperate in order to get at the quality.  I don’t care what Hirst does in the future, but whatever it is, he can show his next exhibition in my apartment if he needs a venue.  (Note to Hirst: the interior style of my apartment is mostly modern minimalism, and the wall colour could do with a little warming up.)

Staffordshire Gold Hoard of Plenty

The City of Birmingham is going through a collective treasure hunt for money at the moment, to acquire, or keep, recently found artifacts in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.  On a Staffordshire farmer’s land, a seventh century, Anglo-Saxon gold hoard was found via the usual suspect: anorak wanderer armed with metal detector: a minimalist Indiana Jones.  The “gold hoard” is a collection of 1500 gold and silver pieces, and was originally displayed at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery in 2009.  The hoard is now in the hands of those greedy treasure robbers, The British Museum, and the West Midlands is angling to get it back.

Popular British TV personality David Starkey has stoked the fire by throwing his celebrity-ness behind appeals for public and private money.  Starkey was quoted in the Birmingham Post web site saying, “…break it up or move it and its meaning is lost”.  This is the same argument that the Greeks use to retrieve the Elgin Marbles from those greedy bastards, The British Museum, to no affect.  Maybe the Greeks would like to contribute in spite.

I have a better idea, one that performs an educational role.  Let’s work with the facts: it’s a gold hoard.  That means long ago a greedy Anglo-Saxon chief (probably an ancestor to the greedy British Museum n’er do wells) stole, embezzled, or otherwise pilfered gold artifacts from another chief, or possibly his own tribe.  Let’s put the stealing in an environment that it deserves: jail.  The Maze Prison is in the process of being ripped down, but surely England must have their Alcatraz, or a version of Guantanamo Bay.  Why not convert part of an unused prison into a showroom for Britain’s found treasure hoards.  Children on school trips would get a two-for-one lesson: historical evidence of what is now their homeland, and a moral lesson for what happens to you when you steal.  Maybe add a chained-up, rotting old actor in one of the cells to add to the affect of misery.

What’s more, the security comes built-in.  Any art thief would be greatly intimidated to set foot anywhere near a jail.  For the optimistic crook who dares to make a dash for it, the one or two security agents stationed at the front door could easily bundle the burglars into a nearby cell.  Then call the nearest magistrate for a quick hearing, and game over.  Bandit caught, taxi fare saved, Bob’s your uncle.

“A Brief History of Curating” is a title recently published in 2008 containing interviews with about a dozen so-called legendary 20th century curators.  Strangely, all were born between 1919 and 1943, making them 65 to 89 years old at time of publishing.  If they’re still alive.  The interviewing happened between 1996 and 2008, but the fact is that nearly all could be considered curators for the mid-20th century.  So a brief history, it isn’t; unless you consider the 1990’s onward a vacant lot of contemporary art curatorship.

brief...and narrow

What struck me about reading the curators’ memoirs, was the anonymity of so many artists.  While a great deal of well-known modern artists were included in these long-ago shows, many more, long-forgotten names were included as well.  I hadn’t heard of 75% of the artists mentioned.  I think this reflects just how splintered the art world is.  In many other aspects of our lives, we can all name a top ten of some industry, or popular culture like music, film, literature, etc.  Visual artists are truly living the Warholian experience by being, at best, famous for a very short time.

Curating a show is by nature a relatively anonymous production anyway.  Only a certain type of person, who might have heard about the show, who lives near the exhibition, and is alive during a one to three month time frame, is going to see it.  Of that very small group, how many people are going to appreciate it or understand it? (Let’s face it, artists aren’t the world’s best communicators.)  What percentage will just say it was complete rubbish.  I realize this isn’t a very optimistic deduction process, and the candid results from this type of analysis would preclude anyone from doing anything ever again.  Still, it seems that curating could do with a little broadening of its distribution.

The best exhibitions are ones that affect the greatest number of people, regardless of the message and sophistication of the audience.  Whether it’s crass, antagonistic, violent, sexy, or even easy, affecting a large number of people will always result in a changed behaviour in the world.  Affecting very few people, won’t.  It’s simple maths, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

One of the museums of Disney

That’s why I think the greatest curator of the 20th century is Walt Disney.  Walt, and his team, not only created their own art, but devised the exhibitions as well: animated films, books, TV shows, Disney World.  Disney even did his own voice-overs.  He was also heavily involved in art education, bequeathing 25% of his fortune to The California Institute of the Arts, which places him amongst heavy spenders like national public galleries and museums.   Disney arguably did more for art in the 20th century than any curator did in fine art.  Even by today’s standards of investment and spending, the Japanese pop artist Takashi Murakami, with his KaiKai Kiki LLC company, pale in comparison.