Is the work of controversial modern artists such as Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin really art, or is it merely a glorified science project and household object??
The world of art took a massive shake up in 1917 when French artist Marcel Duchamp submitted his piece 'Fountain' to an art gallery. The piece was merely a gentlemans urinal signed by the artist. After numerous attacks (I think the original piece was destroyed and replaced several times), the art world eventually began to accept this new form of art.
But now it seems that the previously 'limitless world of art' is truly 'limitless'. I suspect that the likes of Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Caravaggio would be turning in their graves if they could see the works being mass produced on an almost daily basis by contemporary artists such as Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and Grayson Perry to name but a few.
I have no doubt that the work takes effort and imagination- two of the fundamental requirements of art, but the pieces just don't have that awe inspiring feel. I mean, when looking at a piece by Damien Hirst I wasn't inspired as I was when staring at the thick layered brush strokes of Van Gogh. They just aren't the same.
I find it difficult to consider an animal suspended in a box of Formaldehyde (the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living) to be a work of art. It teaches us nothing about the way we live our lives, or how the artist was feeling when he produced the pice.
I can say with confidence that Van Gogh was very depressed when he painted the majority of his paintings, and a more specific example would be Edvard Munch's 'Scream' which would suggest that the artist was confused, depressed and isolated. How do I know this??? Not from accounts from the time, but from the aggression in the brush strokes, the lack of detail in te scenery, the vivd or depressive colours which dominate the canvas.
What does Tracy Emin's piece 'Everyone I've ever slept with' tell us about the artist?? Well for starters I suppose it tells us she couldn't find a cheaper 2-man tent, and that her sewing isn't too bad. There is no expression or aggression involved.
Another point about modern art which annoys me is the idea of having a team of assistants. Damien Hirst has even admitted that he sees much of his art as a 'brand produced in a factory.' Damien Hirst has teams of assistants working on his pieces everyday, but I'll wager that he probably doesn't touch them except to sign them when they're done.
There are some refreshing pieces steadily breaking through however- artists such as Anish Kapoor and Anthony Gormley being the most well known of these. They both produce works that outshine many contemporary artists. Kapoor has inspired me with the awesome scale of some of his pieces, and the vivid colour range of his pieces shows that he is enthralled in his work. Gormley has captured the nation with more famous pieces such as the 'Angel of the North' (albeit 30 years ago) showing his passion and obsession with the human form, he has explored the body by reproducing it's form in different mediums. One controversial contemporary artist who I do find interesting however, is Grayson Perry. His pieces are intriguing and do show expression and emotion, and tell the tale of his younger life- the bullying and his own pain over sexuality. Essentially, expression and emotion are the axiological and most crucial properties of any true work of art.
A final point which always captured my curiosity was the lack of wealth in art. Some of the biggest names going- Van Gogh, Pollock, Caravaggio and Vermeer to name but a few, all had very little money and yet they used what they had to create such exquisite works of art, putting into them not only their money and time, but their passion and love for creativity. Nowadays however, artists have almost unlimited funding, materials and assistants to do their work for them. This leads me to believe that very few modern artists actually put their energy, charisma and emotion into their works, and thus they are less powerful.
Ultimately, I'll be the first critic to say 'It's up to you to decide where you stand in this argument,' but I know I'm on the side of Picasso and Van Gogh.
No comments:
Post a Comment