"All works are made by artist personally"

Ladies and Gentleman 2012 is here..

Another New year.. another new resolutions and another new controversies..
we are just few days into 2012 and here we are with yet another new controversy in art world. First of all controversy is not only free publicity but benefits everyone who is in the middle of it. Yes, I am talking about the Hockney- Hirst controversy.

Tate and Royal Academy are hosting two major shows of Damien Hirst and David Hockney respectively , And I am sure they are thrilled by it and loving it. This will only generate more footfalls for their shows. So I am not a bit surprised that such a controversy is being 'planted' and 'nurtured' through social media platforms to benefit all the parties concerned,i.e. Tate, Royal Academy, Hockney and Hirst in this case.

The question is can it revive flagging art market of Briton and world art market in general? Considering the interest it has caught on the social media it seems the controversy has certainly touched a nerve of people( art world's) who has been questioning the ethical production of art work.

What's the Controversy?
The telegraph London reports, David Hockney's forthcoming exhibition at the Royal Academy contains a sly dig at another superstar artist about to launch a major exhibition. The note reads:
"All the works here were made by the artist himself, personally."

Hockney further retorts, "It's a little insulting to craftsmen," he said. "I used to point out, at art school you can teach the craft; it's the poetry you can't teach. But now they try to teach the poetry and not the craft."

What is the deal?

To begin David Hockney (b. 1937) and Damien Hirst (b. 1965) are two stalwarts of British Art world who have created their own place in history of contemporary art. David a leading figure of 60s and an ardent art historian and painter belonging to school of thought who believed " to paint you need eye, hand and heart. Two won't do". While Damien belongs to 90s era of artists who propagated artist as CEO who creates ideas and gets it executed through various skilled persons ( read crafts persons) and sells it under his brand name.

What David Hockney seems to object is how can an artist borrow skills of another person and sell as his own creation without ever touching it and without giving the people due credit for their contribution in his creation. How 'ethical' can this art be? Or can such art which were never touched by artist will have any value? Damien Hirst on the other hand, is L'Enfant terrible, who brought in a new era of installation of 90s under YBA and also mastered the practice of 'factory made art'. He has openly defended the practice of production through assistants and endorsed it as good as any master's work simply because it has been 'branded' under a famous name (like his).

These two views have clearly dogged the art world for years. But ever since collectors like Saatchi supported Hirst and his style of practice as it benefited their business sense. ( have addressed this in my older blog Shape of things NOT to come. )

Art word and critics remained divided on the issue. Robert Hughes for one has remained very bitter critic of Hirst's practice which he calls nothing but ' tacky commodity' lacking soul.

What now ?
Personally I have admired and despised both Hockney's and Hirst's art.

I agree with Hockney that painting is a fundamental object of art . Man has painted form Paleolithic times. And it is through paintings humans can communicate at much deeper level of consciousness. It is not mere skill, intellect or eye that is at work here but I believe a painting can transport you to the exact position of the human consciousness of primordial time. It is like Mozart's or Bach's music which can do the same magic on human consciousness. In that sense practice of painting is deeply embedded in magic and can communicate much more than what meets eye and intellect. And only a master painter with his skill ,intellect ,control over the technique can bring about magic through his art. Rembrandt is a case in point.

But what happens when artist gets a painting executed by his assistants?
Assisted paintings according to me fail to reach the magical ability because assistants are only imparting their skills but are unable to impart an intellectual, emotional rigor of the artists' vision. I have seen many works and they just remain pretty and soulless 'images' as Hughes classify. Subodh Guta's utensil paintings , Hirsts dot paintings, Murakami's flower beds,etc., and many more all can be classified under this categories.

I fully sympathize with Hockney's lament which is the loss of meaning and magic he has been searching in art which is precisely gone missing in new practice. Last thirty years of art practice and production has changed a lot about how we perceive art , how we practice art and what we collect as art.

Hirst belongs to this new era of art making . Hirst's art pushes the boundaries of notion of art beyond painting. But that does not mean he has lost poetry in art which Hockney is referring to.

To me( and many others) his shark work titled The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is sheer poetry. The visceral quality of this work cuts across all doubts in mind of viewer, achieving awe and fear of impending death of every living being. Isn't this what we call art?




The question again here is Hirst just provided the idea and never did anything physically to execute this work of art. Here the medium of his art ( installation and not painting) allows the freedom for an artist to breach the ethical code of ' personally made by artist' . Therefore although untouched by artists hand it still proves to have artistic value. But same cannot be said about Hirst's paintings.
His exhibition at Wallace's museum, where he showed his paintings 'done by his own hands' only proved to be disastrous. Exhibiting along side master like Baccon, Hirst tried to salvage his prestige but truth was out there to see.

In that sense, Hockney's point that painting as an fundamental object of art making gets credence.





To me interesting factor of this whole Hockney – Hirst controversy lies in the fact Hockney had to proclaim "All works are made by artist personally" suggests that art making practice is divided clearly into two categories of artists. Those artists who make work with their own hands, and those who used some one's hands to make works.
Such declaration will not change anything much on the ground about art making/collecting practice of today.

Meantime controversy will die down.. like any other publicity stunt.


Happy 2012 and best wishes!

related links

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/david-hockney-vs-damien-hirst-the-queens-chosen-one-puts-king-of-the-ybas-on-the-spot-6284208.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8989772/David-Hockney-is-always-right-and-always-wrong.html

www.telegraph.co.uk › Culture › Art › Art News

Shape of things NOT to come

In its recent issue, an online art magazine carried an article from The Observer stating -“how Saatchi and his YBA influenced leading Asian artists”. Article quoted three hugely successful artists from Asia, such as Takashi Murakami of Japan , Ai Wei Wei of China and Subodh Gupta from India, acknowledging influence of YBAs and Saatchi in their art practice.

History has proven that patronage is one of the important  factors in determining a trend in art history. Charles Saatchi is indeed a significant figure of contemporary art world of 90s who has been credited with changing the art trends in many ways . It would be interesting to understand Charles Saatchi the man and if he is still relevant in today's art world as in 90s in shaping the perceptions of global art scene ?

Charles Saatchi, born in 1943, is of Jewish of Iraqi origin and before he became powerful art dealer he belonged to advertising world of UK. Saatchi shot to limelight in early 90s with his exhibition of his collection of works called “Sensation-” presenting Young British Artist's (YBA)such as Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, Chapman brothers, Jenny Saville, Marq Quinn, amd many others,  whose career's were launched with this show. There is no doubt that Sensation was the game changing event in history of post war art that set new rules, new equations and new art practice.

For Saatchi, this show catapulted his position from a regular art collector/dealer to position of the “game changer”. At least that is the perception Saatchi tried to propagate which is evident from his statement “ art world is constantly speculating my next move ...” some of the artists were quick to subscribe to his perception and coveted Saatchi's 'midas' touch . If Saatchi made careers he also broke careers of the artist, by dumping their works in market. Italian artist Sandro Chia is a case in point. So did his protege, Damien Hirst and his dealer bore the brunt of Saatchi's whim when he threatened to sale him cheap . Hirst and his dealer had to buy all his works back , including the shark work which made Saatchi and Hirst famous overnight.

Methods Saatchi adopted while building his art collection was to buy a young and emerging artist's works in bulk and later sell the works at a large profit. Such methods of buying/selling in bulk is generally adopted in stock market trading and are known as as speculators a category distinct from investors. A speculator is defined as one who is 'risking investment, anticipating a major change in future price of the asset.; or “some one who makes conjecture without knowing facts”; or “one who participates in market to profit from buying and selling futures and by anticipating futures price movements”. Saatchi thus changed the game of art collection. Traditionally an art collector built a steady rapport with the artist/dealer who first tried to understand artists' ideology and then participate in his aesthetics by putting his money on his creations. This process was far long drawn as it required relationship built on trust, friendship and respect. Investment in art was not seen as out right profit making venture but rather a long term participation in cultural history, which eventually would give financial returns.

Saatchi had no patience to wait for such a long time( a decade or more) to see his investment bear fruit . So he changed the game of collecting. To be in Saatchi's collection, artists had to be 'prolific' . It is the volume of works where his profits came. It was no longer necessary (for him) to own that single masterpiece of the artist on which his reputation was built. Instead by collecting of a large number of works of a single artist he created a monopoly over his market and then sold it at profitable margins, wiping out looses even if the works were of mediocre quality. He was after brand making and not after reputation of an artist. Overnight artist became stars and Saatchi became billionaire. Thus he changed the focus of an art work from critical acclaim as a parameter of a good work to market price achieved at the auction house. Saatchi knew it was much easier to manipulate the auction results than to generate a critical opinion for a work; as he declared in disdain for critics, “ critics can be assigned to gardening or travel jobs”.

His criteria of collection influenced a new breed of artists who could produce their works in “factories” and sell them in bulk. Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Donald Judd, Rober Gober, Sol Le Witt, Tracy Emin etc , to name some of the artists; engaged in mass production of their works making art in to a “formulaic product”. Further, the argument of post modern theory  positing the idea that 'authorship of an artist is no longer relevant for a work of art object', supported Saatchi's ideology of mass production of art. Issues like artistic merit, integrity of artist, authenticity etc, were no longer relevant issues on a debate of art practice. Saatchi successfully convert art object from 'unique commodity' to any other retail commodity available for mass consumption.

Saatchi's success in art market , encouraged many speculators to enter the art market, with the lure of quick money. Speculators are like gamblers who never know when things can go right and when it would go wrong. There is nothing wrong in being a gambler or speculator. However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that when there are more speculators than investors in market , it is bound to crash.

If Mr. Saatchi was instrumental in creating a bull market for the art world. Then probably he was also responsible for its collapse in some ways.

Charles Saatchi the man, is a mystery. He never speaks to media, nor does he attend his own openings. He is often described as reclusive, single minded,visionary decisive, bold, capricious, hot tempered , and man with short attention span. By his own confession, Charles Saatchi is an artholic. Collecting art is his passion and his business.

In a recent, ongoing show titled “ Shape of things to come: New sculpture” in his London gallery, Charles Saatchi tried to once again predict( as the title of the show suggests) the trends in sculptural practice mainly in Europe and US. Unfortunately the exhibition reflects his vision of 90s and not 2011. Most of the of the works did not attempt to break new grounds in terms of materiality , thematically and even technologically to suggests any future trend. Neither there was any element of surprise or sensational qualities of YBAs show . On the contrary most of the works are predictably boring and formulaic, with a quintessential Saatchi stamp on it. Many of Saatchi's recent exhibition on Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern art shows have received a similar criticism and response. Predictability seemed to be plaguing Mr. Saatchi's vision, and so is his credibility to speculate the things to come.

Saatchi's perception on YBAs might have been bang on the target, but is he able to read today's global cultural trends correctly? Or is it time for another 'game changer' to arrive on the global art scene?
only time will tell...