Christina Patterson: Art for art's sake (when the bubble bursts)
Our mad market-led art culture has distorted judgements of what is good, or beautiful
Saturday, 11 October 2008
In the week that the global economy collapsed, I had a lovely time looking at art. On Wednesday night, it was art from China. On Thursday night, it was art from Iran. Revolutions come and go. Regimes change. Dictators are installed. But the human impulse to create beauty out of ugliness continues. "When you have two pennies left in the world," as one of the more comprehensible Chinese proverbs tells us, "buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other." Bread to live and the lily to have a reason to live.
The Chinese art on Wednesday was not the Saatchi spectacular unleashed at his new gallery in Chelsea. This was, apparently, like rush-hour in Beijing, as champagne-sipping glitterati strained to catch a glimpse of – well, not the art, obviously, but the man himself, the maestro, the maverick, contemporary art's Mao. This, after all, was the man who led art on the Long March from poverty to global superpower, the man who created elites on a whim. But Mr Saatchi, like Godot, wasn't there. He, according to his global superbrand wife, was "watching television".
No, the Chinese art I saw on Wednesday was in a small gallery in Savile Row. The last time I saw it, and the artist, was in a tiny studio just off the People's Square in Shanghai. The studio was in an old courtyard house occupied by 17 families. There was no light in the hall. Over tiny cups of tea, brewed on a camping gas stove, Sun Liang told me, through an interpreter, about his life. He told me about the dead people he saw on the street during the Cultural Revolution, about his years carving jade in an arts and craft factory and about his early forays into painting. He told me about the flash of enlightenment in the 1980s when he was free to learn about Western art and literature, and the dark years that followed Tiananmen Square. Since then, he has taken part in the Venice Biennale, and exhibited all over the world, but he has always been reluctant to show work from those years. Reluctant, that is, until now.
Here, in this smart gallery, among mini-Meccas to designer handbags and shoes, was his anguish writ large: a giant skeleton of an Icarus flying too close to a cluster of grinning-skull suns, a black skeleton with limbs flailing in the shape of a swastika, a centipede surrounded by grinning gargoyle heads, and yet another skeleton prostrate under a shower of blood. "During that period of time," Sun Liang explains in the catalogue to the exhibition at the James Hyman gallery, "the extreme description of death would bring a pleasurable sensation. I was unable to face the social circumstances."
The following evening, in a gallery down the road, I met another artist whose "social circumstances" present something of a challenge. As a woman in Iran, Golnaz Fathi is not allowed to leave the house unless she covers everything except her face and her hands. If she disobeys, she risks a year in prison – or, if she's lucky, 74 lashes. If she "misbehaves" sexually, she could be stoned to death. This radiantly beautiful 36-year-old artist doesn't mention any of this. Perhaps more importantly, nor does her art. "It isn't political in any way at all," she told me.
Well, perhaps not. Certainly, gazing at these mesmerising melanges of calligraphic swirls punctuated by splashes of colour, it's hard to see a clear political message. But when Fathi – one of Iran's leading artists, whose work is now part of the permanent collection at the British Museum – talks about escaping from the discipline of the calligraphy she learnt, painstakingly, for seven hours a day for seven years, and allowing the brush to dance on the canvas, when she herself can't, it's hard not to see metaphors everywhere. The show (at Xerxes Fine Art) is, after all, called "My Freedom".
When the annual Frieze art fair opens next week, London will, once again, be awash with the superficial solipsistic vomitings of artists desperate to get rich quick. Our mad, market-led art culture – of which Saatchi has been the presiding Svengali – has already made many rich out of all proportion to their talent. It has distorted judgements of what is good, or beautiful, or true. Visual art, like all art, should be about craft, technique, ideas and passion. Sensation is fine, for a micro-moment, but sensation is only sensation.
If our art bubble, like our banking bubble, gives way to something else, then I hope it's to this: to artists who have the humility to acknowledge that they're working in a tradition in which everything has been said before, and probably better, but that it's always worth trying because you are a particular person in a particular culture at a particular point in history. I hope, in other words, that our artists will have something to say and the talent to say it.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




About time someone voiced the truth. Too few curators and patrons have been decreeing what we have to accept as good, despite the blatant evidence to the contrary. Fortunately lack of taste and sensibility wears thin in time and quickly palls. I look forward to the good art emerging from all the bad once again!
Posted by an-aesthetic | 12.10.08, 22:27 GMT
"......to artists who have the humility to acknowledge that they're working in a tradition in which everything has been said before, and probably better, "
this is a very silly statement, it makes very little sense. Do you find it uncomfortable that artists are no longer conforming to the master slave didactic, does it threaten your position as a manager of the arts ?
Posted by LetEmCome | 11.10.08, 18:52 GMT
Modern art is rubbish - patronising, infantile, gimmicky dross - I'd rather pay not to have it in my house actually. The whole art world is as absurd as the whole credit banking world - all based on emperor's clothes confidence. A plague on both your houses of sand.
Posted by sudsy | 11.10.08, 13:25 GMT
Art for art sake?
Money for god sake ! (Well i couldn't resist it.) Artistes must starve & die paupers then ?.
Posted by Richard B | 11.10.08, 10:33 GMT
The Free Art Fair is the art fair for the credit crunch. 50 contemporary artists are giving their work away absolutely free.
They are not getting rich quick, and some are also in the frieze and zoo art fairs and saatchi collections. It just shows they're not all in it for the money!
Posted by francis scholl | 11.10.08, 09:27 GMT
There was a time that only those who were related to a particular social class could be regarded as artist.
By late 19th and early 20th century, those regarded as socially ethnic minorities got involved in art arena. They came up with idea of humiliating upper class art in a sarcasm and banal style (dada movement for instance).
That wave of social rejection of class system and modern socialism provided the opportunity for some wealthy ethnic minorities (living in Europe) to invest in their work as a way to rejection the ruling class in order to get recognized (accepted by Europeans) rather than appreciating to modern art.
Since then, art has started as a political instrument and ugly became beautiful.
By the way, speaking of a particular point in history I suggest studying the work of Kandinsky and its relevancy to present time.
Posted by mack | 11.10.08, 03:23 GMT