egafd.com

or DODOist, afterall it's now extinct

JP

Spelling Schmelling , I will now apply for an arts council grant to set fire to pile of vibrators and call it Dildoist

Good One, LOL

JP

First this:

'Many things become household names; doesn't mean that they are held in any esteem though does it'

Then this:

'It's highly pretentious to assume that as something has achieved household name status, that it is worthy.'

Nebulous tosh and you've missed my point. Like them or not, the Brit Art mafia are now part of mainstream culture and as such advocate something far more meritable than a lot of what it now sits beside. If Hirst, Emin et al can get someone to walk into an art gallery whereas normally they would walk past, then they deserve praise simply for that.

'But I guess us lesser mortals will never fully understand the statement behind it as we are pedants as well as peasants.'

Where've you been? The idea that art is somehow for the purely mythical intellectual elite is complete rubbish as most artists would agree. Why on earth do you think the Brit Art movement wanted such a high public profile in the first place? That's the exact attitude they're against.

I loved this though:

'I did go! I was dragged along by a girlfriend. I still thought it stunk of old bollocks.'

Holden Macgroyn - my arse. You're Brian Sewell, aren't you.

'I find such pretencious behaviour that you have shown to be the norm for people who think they know better than the average Joe Bloggs on the street. '

Do I? You don't credit Joe Bloggs with much, do you?

'Having studied Music at the Royal Northern College of Music I was for ever faced with prats who continually looked down their nose at me because I came from a State Educated school, they from Private, didn't matter that I passed my Degree with Honours whilst the flunked theirs. So before you again assume that one is not worthy to comment on such subjects get your facts right.'

Sorry to hear about that, but I don't see its relevance.

The relevance my friend is that you made an assumption that I have never been to an Art Gallery in my life and therefore shouldn't make comment on Brit Art, your assumption is very very wrong.

You commented

"Through his patronage and exhibitions Charles Saatchi was instrumental in creating the whole Brit Art Scene in mid 90's - a movement that put British art on the map in a manner not seen for decades, and the money involved is a necessity for professional practice and reflective of the impact it has had worldwide (and even here the figures are dwarfed by how much a Jasper Johns can go for these days). One loss - a Saatchi commission for ?500,000 - being the Chapman Bros' extraordinary Hell."

If that is the case then why were these masterpieces stored in a factory wharehouse and not in a gallery, why not show them to the masses is Mr Saatchi is the benefactor you make him out to be, why not parade them around Schools to educate youngsters about what the benefit the Arts can have.

Oh I forgot, he's not intersted in that, just merely that they're kept away from the plebs until some sad sap with more money than sense pays a tidy sum for them

JP


JP

Holden MacSewell !.......please.

I never made any assumption about you never visiting an art gallery at all. It was a general figurative comment aimed at anyone reading, not specifically aimed at you. Sorry for the confusion.

Saatchi: many pieces are stored away and not shown because the necessary gallery space is not presently available in many places. Large scale installation work, 3D, sculpture etc all require certain conditions for them to be shown. Transport and costs can also be problematic, as can - oh the irony - insurance and security. Yes, admittedly, many pieces are withheld at his bequest - as a collector that's his choice - but he did open his own Saatchi gallery in the old GLC building on Southbank only last year to give much of his collection a much needed airing.

I wondered when this would pop up,i've got to admit i had a sense of schadenfreude when i saw the news on telly.
There has been a good arguement on both sides,but it boils down to,was it art? yes it was,but was it good art, no i don't think so.There are British artists,who i think are genius'es e.g. Lucian Freud, Hockney, etc.
The thing is with Jack Vettriano at least he can paint ,it may not be my taste but he has talent.Which is more than can be said for the likes of Hirst, Emin,et-al;a friend of mine told me that when Hirst was at art college in the north of england he basically chored[nicked] other people's stuff on the course so he could get an E............grade A level!!!!!!!!.After he managed to blagg his way into St. Martin's in London,[god knows how.]I'm sorry but i think that he's an untalented chancer and that also go'es for Emin and her shitty bed.
The most modern artist who was a bit of a rogue and a genius was Dali who was always chasing a fast buck,but COULD PAINT.
When that frozen head Defrosted in Sattchi's kitchen,because some workman had pulled a plug out;i laughed my fucking socks off.
Now that's art.

The Last Word wrote ;

'Through his patronage and exhibitions Charles Saatchi was instrumental in creating the whole Brit Art Scene in mid 90's..'

but also

'Like them or not, the Brit Art mafia are now part of mainstream culture'

and not only

'Where've you been? The idea that art is somehow for the purely mythical intellectual elite is complete rubbish as most artists would agree. Why on earth do you think the Brit Art movement wanted such a high public profile in the first place? That's the exact attitude they're against.'

Surely Saatchi created a lot of the media interest and commercial market for this by buying up stuff and stashing it away. Creating an instant market. Whether it's utter bollocks or not. And let's be honest ; most of it is an enormous con trick. Just what does Emin's unmade bed and used tampons tell us about the human condition (apart from the fact she has the personal habits and hygiene of a hyena) ?

To suggest these artists confronted some brave new world and gave their conceptual tinkerings to us the great unwashed and unartistic as some way of opening our artistic horizons and to tear down elitism is at best bizarrely romantic or just plain wrong. They were (horror) out to con as much money and broadsheet interest as possible. They were set up in large part by a small elitist artistic junta. Hirst is now (unfortunately) a landowner in North Devon.

I know most people (myself included) lack concepts of conceptual art. Mainly because it tells us nothing or very little ; not even about the level of apparent skill most of us can recognise in figurative art, such as painting or sculpture. And I have very little critical abilities with 'art'.

The Last Word obviously has great interest and knowledge about 'Brit Art' and it means something to him. Fine, but people are allowed opinions. And I would challenge it's place in 'mainstream culture'. As often objects of derision possibly. Were it not for the unartistic publicity about the cretinous individuals concerned we would just be witnessing another example of one cultural elite (yes they do exist) attempting to make themselves important, rich and famous on the back of faux-controversy.

I fear the Emperor has no clothes and nobody has the guts to tell him.