Fire In East London, A tragedy for Modern Art Options

[Sarah lady]

Not sure if people have heard about this but it has really upset me.
Some of the pieces that have been lost are some of my favourite British pieces (Jake and Dinos Chapman's Hell for instance)
I know it would be more of a tragedy if these were pieces of art by dead artists as they could never be replaced but it is part of modern history and culture that has gone up in flames, as well as the pieces themselves.

The girl I work with did put it into context for me (while I was getting upset about the lost Tracy Emins) that at least it was only art, and not people that have been destroyed.

[Jackeau]

I'm with you Sarah.

[nevski]

saw a news item briefly on bbc news 24 yesterday afternoon that was basically saying that new money millionaires (like saatchi) have no idea of the true value of art, and only spend a lot of money on it to look cool and trendy.

what a load of bollocks.

i've been to the saatchi exhibition twice now, and loved it both times. infact, i would say that apart from the tate modern it's my favourite gallery.

these art historians are up their own arses.

Its a shame that some pieces from this period in history won't be available for future generations to enjoy.

[Braggtopia!]

....and then there was the great library in Alexandria.

[Maria]

I may be a Philistine, but I think most modern art is a tragedy to art.
Not that I'm in favor of art being destroyed. And yes, I've been watching that "story of a masterpiece" program and I know my art history well enough to know that a great deal of the things we think are brilliant now were considered hideous and ugly and shocking in their day.

I'm not artistically sophisticated, I suppose.

[Twopints]

Maria,

I'm with you on this - it's "Emperor's new clothes syndrome" as far as I am concerned.

However, I thought that the comment that "Millions of pounds of benefit" had been done was a little harsh. I don't know who said it but he was an artist / art critic on the news.

[Jackeau]

most modern art is a tragedy to art

Wash your mouth out.

By definition modern art is only that art which is being undertaken now. So alongside the exceptionally able, and relatively recently deceased, Terry Frost and Patrick Heron we have Lucien Freud and that shitehawk Jack Vetriano all working with different aspects of painting. Freud and Vetriano both paint immediately recognisable figurative works, Frost and Heron were working in the abstract. Similarlly with sculpture against the works of the Chapmans or Gavin Turk you have Alexander "Sandy" Stoddart and his ilk. To me it appears that there will always be a figurative tradition that is ongoing and perhaps more familiar to some. The stuff that we come to look on as of importance further down the line is the stuff which perhaps needs to be seen in its context amongst other works, or the stuff that simply needs a little time to overcome the shock value.

When Marc Quinn produced 'self' a cast of his own head in several pints of his own blood and kept it in a glass deep freeze the people more comfortable with figurative works should have been delighted that here was a piece in a language they could relate to, instead the question was raised as to why his own blood - a question it seems to me that has no more reason than "why bronze in place of plaster of paris" when looking at a figurative piece on those values alone. The people who were more interested in looking at art as continually changing landscape were fascinated by the work, but imprtantly were as able to appreciate the quality of the piece as a figurative casting as they were the questions that his use of his own body material might raise.

For the record, of the list above Frost is a particular hero of mine and I was very sad when he died, Heron and Freud I also admire and I have a great deal of time for both Turk and Stoddart, though the last perhaps only because I find his championing of the neo-classical form somewhat bizarre.

[Roo]

Jack Vetriano makes my teeth itch. His pieces would be dreadful enough if they were photos, but the thought that someone devoted all that time to such maudlin dreck is additionally painful.

Bah!

Quinn makes me think, and much of his work references acknowledged "masters," which is quite fun for the Art History geek within.

My friend Rob Burke (most of whose painted works Maria and Twopints probably wouldn't care for (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) has a photo show up in Brooklyn that I suspect many Braggies will quite like:

"Every Occupation in America," a series of more than 150 images of American workers arranged by geographic region; at Black & White, 483 Driggs Ave., Williamsburg, Brooklyn (718-599-8775). Through 7 June.

He was inspired by the national census list of occupations, and has been spending all his time of late on the road trying to get photos of American workers. Good stuff. Technically lovely photos, and marvellously unsentimental.

Folks should go!

[Beryl the Peril]

tracy emin is not my favourite person but i was impressed by her comment in theindependenttoday.

my first thought was that perhaps someone started the fire in protest about the stuff we burned in iraq.

are there any theories yet about how the fire started ?

[itsmeBarbara]

Random thoughts on art and destruction.

A great deal of art is purchased as a tax dodge. If you put a million dollars in a painting, it can't be continually taxed and can be liquidated quickly and (sometimes) quietly

Isn't all art subject to taste? Some is shit, some is great.

I hate to see any museum, any work destroyed, whether you like it or not, it represents hard work by the artist. And if this was retaliatory, more reason to hate the frickin' bastards in charge of this war.

Some offices in the higher floors at the World Trade Center were occupied by artists - they were hard to rent because it took so long to get to the top floors so it was perfect for artists. My brother is an art dealer, and one of his best friends and best artists died there, along with most of his work.

[Jackeau]

Jack Vetriano makes my teeth itch.  His pieces would be dreadful enough if they were photos, but the thought that someone devoted all that time to such maudlin dreck is additionally painful.

What a woman of insight you are, Roo.

[Maria]

I didn't know who did those dreadful paintings of that I hated so much until I heard some wanker on Desert Island Discs a few weeks ago. Martyn and I both turned to each other and said, basically "what a wanker! Who is this guy?" Yep, Jack Vetriano, as it turned out.
What a suprise. Not.

Jackeau, I know what the definition of modern art is. That's why I said "most" not "all." It it was just the controversial stuff we hear about I would have probably said "all."
I don't like most modern art, period. There is some I like.
Whether or not I like it I too hate to see any art destroyed, but I'm a lot more broken up about the Taliban destroying the great stone Buddhas in Afghanistan than I am about this warehouse fire.

And if the questions "why his blood" has no meaning and we should say it is the same as using plaster, etc, then why did he choose to use his blood and not some other material? Its not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of art materials. It seems disingenous to imply that he didn't do this to get a particular response and/or affect, to convey a particular message. If we can't ask that question, than how can anything think fully about that piece of work.

There was a debate this morning on the Today program about "found art." The woman kept going on and on about it being art b/c of what was in the artist's mind when he or she picked up the piece of whatever and put it on a pedastal, maybe signing their name, and saying it is now art.
the thought that kept going through my mind was that the artist was thinking "I wonder if people are gullible enough to buy this crap?"

[Jackeau]

There was a debate this morning on the Today program about "found art."  The woman kept going on and on about it being art b/c of what was in the artist's mind when he or she picked up the piece of whatever and put it on a pedastal, maybe signing their name, and saying it is now art.
the thought that kept going through my mind was that the artist was thinking "I wonder if people are gullible enough to buy this crap?"

I agree with you about the found art. I don't see why my digging up a potato and finding it an interesting shape would be any less an art item.

I wasn't for a moment disputing your right to hold an opinion about art, modern or otherwise, but to suggest it a tragedy is unreasonable.

I don't know enough about Marc Quinn's work to really comment so it was pretty foolish of me to raise it in my earlier post but I have seen that particular piece a couple of times and it does have a fascinating quality about it, something I think that is brought about by his use of his own body materials.

As to the question of the Taliban and the srone buddhas in Afghanistan it is very diffucult to compare these to the loss of a collection of modern art, no matter how great. The religious and cultural significance that the Buddhas hold is far in excess of a handful of 100 or more pieces of work by mostly living artists and of course their scarcity value is beyond compare but for these reasons a more sensible comparison must be between the Buddhas and say the facade of York Minster or Durham Cathedral. I am saddened by the loss of the materials stored at Momart but it is a different issue.

Its good to see that no-one that has contriubuted here cares for Jack Vetriano. My SiL gave me one of his prints for Christmas or a birthday a few years back and I was grateful to take it down when we redecorated. It's never gone back on the wall.

[Martyn]

From your link Jackeau...

This piece is entitled, "Mad Dogs" and is the perfect piece of art to add atmosphere to your home, office or restaurant!

...your home, office or restaurant...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

What got my goat, and until Maria explained I had no idea who Vetriano was or that he was responsible for the gift shop tat that is Mad Dogs et al, was when Sue Lawley began to take him up on his penchant for "appearing", Hitchcock like, in his works.
He did it, he said, because he needed to populate his paintings with people and he was just one more person.
I heard the show when it first aired and again with Maria and I wished both times that Lawley had said on hearing this, just as I'm sure the whole listening audience did as one, Bullshit!

Listened also to the found art excuser.
Made up a song as I drove along which alluded to the fact that I think these people have their heads up their own arses.

Back on topic...

No matter how shite I might think most of the works were, they were created for the most part, I hope, with sincerity and by hard graft. It is a great loss but not one over which I will be losing any sleep.

[Beryl the Peril]

what i want to know is... why was so much of it in a warehouse ????

have i got the wrong end of the stick here ??

my own view is that art is like any other labour and should be rewarded by a fair days pay for a fair days work and that it should become part of life's rich tapestry.

[Roo]

"I wonder if people are gullible enough to buy this crap?"

Personally, I suspect that goes on more in the minds of the Jack Vettrianoes than the really obsessed, thinking artist nuts (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

What bugs me about Vettriano and his ilk is the one-trick pony aspect of it. Did he start out with these pictures as an ironic commentary on greeting card and resaurant-appropriate art and just got sucked into the cash cow part of it? I dunno. Would Monet have just stuck with his haystacks if they were as calendar-friendly duing his time?

Among my working artist friends/acquaintences, the saleability of their stuff is only marginally considered--only enough to keep dealers and galleries interested. If they hit on something that also sells, then fabulous, but it really isn't a fundamental part of their process.

Rob (he of the photos I mentioned above) has (much to the chagrin of his dealer) been all over the place as a painter. He grabs a concept and runs with it for a while, and then goes off to explore something else. Somehow color field interpretations of free photo calendars, and paint-by-number translations of altered Polaroids can lead to a photographic documentation of American workers (with, I think, a little more intimacy and respect than, say August Sander). (Not that Sander was *disrespectful*, but-- oh, just go see the show. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[Dickie]

I reluctantly fall between two stools on this one. While I recognise there were some great works lost I also think that there were a lot of what the media has described as 'The Emperor's New Clothes' that nobody other than the insurer and the person who paid silly money for the work will ever worry about again.

Art in storage for a private collector begs another question.

Andrew Lawson wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian today. (If I can be arsed I'll find a link)

[Jon D]

I reluctantly fall between two stools on this one. While I recognise there were some great works lost I also think that there were a lot of what the media has described as 'The Emperor's New Clothes' that nobody other than the insurer and the person who paid silly money for the work will ever worry about again.

Art in storage for a private collector begs another question.

Andrew Lawson wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian today. (If I can be arsed I'll find a link)

I was watching the late review on the BBC - Germaine Greer was going on about the stuff only being in a warehouse because the insurance companies demand silly money to cover it when it's on display even though it's actually safer in a big gallery with security cameras and 24 hour guards than locked up in an smelly ole warehouse. dunno if that's the point lawson was making too.

Some of that destroyed stuff was interesting, some of it wasn't IMHO, it'd be a shame to tar it all with the same brush... the point had occured to me (which was also repeated on the TV - making me feel very knowlegable) that in the case the more conceptual works it's a bit odd to make a fetish of the actual object when the concept is the big thing. I can imagine Emin's tent so I'm nor really worried that I'll never see it.

Actually having seen a bit of Emin's stuff and hearing her talking on the telly I think she's probably quite nice really.

Yeah the valuations are getting out of hand and it's a rich mans tax dodge - but you can usually get to see it for free, or at least for cheap, and some of it will make you think

[Maria]

Jackeau kindly PM'd me several days back to let me know that Robert Hughes was doing a show called "The New Shock of the New." I didn't actually get his message at the time as for once I was actually watching the show I'd been planning to watch (that very one) instead of missing and and only finding out about it later.

It was quite interesting, but what I am really pleased about is that BBC4 are now rerunning his original "Shock of the New" on Sunday nights, starting last week.

I adored that when I first saw it at about 13 or 14 and have been wanting to see it again for years. It was hugely valuable in my art education. As much as I suspect Robert Hughes is not someone I'd want to be friends with, he's a fascinating art critic.
Makes sense, really, doesn't it?